Is E=mc2 Related to Zeno's Paradox?

[dainamiku]

If e=mc2 wouldn't that mean I'm in a Xeno's paradox? and What would things be like if e did not equal mc2? ?
I understand why it must equal mc2 but can't imagine how things would be if it didn't.

and
If we watch what's happening in the universe in mega ultra super fast forward wouldn't it just look like what neutrinos were doing?

If my brain, numbers and the universe stuff are infinite, then that means their is no midpoint to measure such as masses like atoms or neutrinos that would make us stuck in a xeno paradox correct? =O

That seems to be the reason they build overly expensive particle accelerators because their desperate to prove that we are not in a xeno paradox.

This has become very disturbing for me please help thanks.

 

[JustinLevy]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand.
Can you be more explicit? How does E=mc^2 lead to (or is somehow equivalent to) Xeno's paradox?

And why do you think (as you seem to imply) that E=mc^2 makes everything infinite so "there is no midpoint to measure"?

We (or at least I) need you to spell out your reasoning a bit more, for I can't follow your logic.

 

[dainamiku]

E=mc2 accounts for all matter and energy.. which is relative to everything, for where there is no endpoint.

My logic is that everything is made up of energy and matter, and all things are infinite because there is no end when measuring or dividing a stream of numbers 1,2,3,4... etc. or 3.14159... etc.

I'm not trying to state that e=mc2 is equivalent to zeno's paradox, I'm trying to say that since energy is matter which are all things, for which an endpoint has not been discovered yet... even still the smallest particle, is always divisible making infinity constant.

I'm saying because I find in E=mc2 that all are infinite from how unmeasurable the universe and everything is my logic, becomes..
If all are infinite then there is no mid-point.

Please find an error in my thought process, I am going nuts. thanks.

 

[Waxterzz]

learn to live with infinity

 

[HallsofIvy]

E=mc2 accounts for all matter and energy.. which is relative to everything, for where there is no endpoint.

My logic is that everything is made up of energy and matter, and all things are infinite because there is no end when measuring or dividing a stream of numbers 1,2,3,4... etc. or 3.14159... etc.

I'm not trying to state that e=mc2 is equivalent to zeno's paradox, I'm trying to say that since energy is matter which are all things, for which an endpoint has not been discovered yet... even still the smallest particle, is always divisible making infinity constant.

I'm saying because I find in E=mc2 that all are infinite from how unmeasurable the universe and everything is my logic, becomes..
If all are infinite then there is no mid-point.

Please find an error in my thought process, I am going nuts. thanks.

So either this is just a play on words or you don't understand that you are using the word "infinity" with several different meanings. And what reason do you have for saying "even still the smallest particle, is always divisible"? Are you simply denying quantum physics?

 

[schroder]

I'm saying because I find in E=mc2 that all are infinite from how unmeasurable the universe and everything is my logic, becomes..
If all are infinite then there is no mid-point.

Please find an error in my thought process, I am going nuts. thanks.

This is really a philosophical issue, rather than a mathematical or physics question. But it is interesting just the same. Why are you “going nuts” because you can’t find a mid-point, or because everything seems to extend infinitely in both the large and small directions? Personally, I find it comforting that we have not found a wall enclosing our Universe! If we did find such a thing, we would probably all go nuts, knowing that we are just fish in a bowl! Also, if we found such a wall, how could we explain it? What lies on the other side? How could the Universe just end? I think we should just take comfort in the open-ended solution to the question. I know that isn’t very scientific, but neither is your question!

 

[tim_lou]

Please put some logic in your claims. You are just making completely random statements (playing with words) and relating seemingly different concepts without justification. Physics is not about a hunch, or a gut feeling that you have.

Your statement is like me saying E=mc^2 so I'm going to have pizza for lunch.

 

[Dale]

Eeven still the smallest particle, is always divisible making infinity constant.

There is no evidence to support this claim and it is counter to current mainstream physics so it does not belong on this forum.

 

[dainamiku]

logic is a form of philosophy

Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning "nature") is the natural science which examines basic concepts such as energy, force, and spacetime and all that derives from these, such as mass, charge, matter and its motion.

In an absolute time frame the speed of light cannot be constant. So the speed of light is finite and has a certain, quantifiable velocity. Every object has an absolute state of motion relative to absolute space, so that an object must be either in a state of absolute rest, or moving at some absolute speed.

If motion is at absolute speed
1. spacetime must be infinite, always divisible
2. midpoints must be finite and undivisible

If motion is at absolute rest
1. spacetime must be finite, and undivisible
2. midpoints must be infinite and always divisible.

Looking at the motion of neutrino and quarks which are always constant, we see that their spacetime is constant and always divisible.. What neutrino's and quarks are doing looks equal to what the universe is doing but at high constant velocity. Is absolute rest not permitted in physics? If there is no absolute rest permitted at anytime what does that tell you about physics?

My main concern is realitive motion. I want special and general relativity to be correct, but i simply can't deny zeno's paradox with its constant regards to midpoints.

Please help me out, I am starting to feel better but not entirely, all responses have been much appreciated.
thanks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

logic is a form of philosophy

That's the first thing you've said that I understood and agree with.

The rest of what you are writing is a mish-mash of words. "If motion is at absolute rest" doesn't even make sense. Your discussion about midpoints comes out of nowhere.

Please take tim_lou's advice to heart.

 

[Dmitry67]

logic is a form of philosophy

In an absolute time frame the speed of light cannot be constant. So the speed of light is finite and has a certain, quantifiable velocity. Every object has an absolute state of motion relative to absolute space, so that an object must be either in a state of absolute rest, or moving at some absolute speed.

Looking at the motion of neutrino and quarks which are always constant, we see that their spacetime is constant and always divisible.. What neutrino's and quarks are doing looks equal to what the universe is doing but at high constant velocity. Is absolute rest not permitted in physics? If there is no absolute rest permitted at anytime what does that tell you about physics?

Where did you find all that nonsence?

There is npo absolute rest, absolute movement, and absolute time frame.
Quarks do not have a "constant motion"
With a very high probalitity the same is applicable tot he neutrino.

What neutrino's and quarks are doing looks equal to what the universe is doing but at high constant velocity.

OMG ! Where do you take it?

 

[silverslith]

you take it to as far as the universe goes.! Ha Ha HA

 

[dainamiku]

That's the first thing you've said that I understood and agree with.

The rest of what you are writing is a mish-mash of words. "If motion is at absolute rest" doesn't even make sense. Your discussion about midpoints comes out of nowhere.

Please take tim_lou's advice to heart.

If motion is at absolute rest meaning the opposite of absolute motion/speed, and I didn't discuss midpoints out of no where, zeno's paradox has to do with questioning where the midpoint is in everything. Einstein's earlier theory of time and space, Special Relativity, proposed that distance and time are not absolute. The ticking rate of a clock depends on the motion of the observer of that clock; likewise for the length of a "yard stick." Its odd that no one here gets what I am talking about, any teachers here or actual physics students?

special relativity is a theory about the structure of space and time that is a radical departure from our intuitive ideas. Relativistic effects are only noticeable at relative velocities much faster then we encounter in every day activities. The first relativistic effects were observed in trying to measure the Earth's motion through space.

The waves that ripple out from a rock thrown in a pool are structurally similar to sound waves. When you speak the air vibrates with a pattern of pressure changes in the form of waves. Light was shown to have many of the properties of waves. Unlike sound light travels through empty space. Whatever contains the changing levels of pressure associated with a wave is called its medium of propagation. With sound this is air and with water waves it is water. Scientists naturally wondered what supports the propagation of light in empty space. They assumed there must exist such a medium and they called it the ether.

The Earth circles the sun which in turn circles the galaxy which in turn moves away form neighboring galaxies. The absolute motion of the Earth relative to the ether must be very fast. By measuring the speed of light in one direction and then the opposite direction one should be able to determine the absolute motion of the Earth through the ether in that direction. When the Earth is moving in the same direction as the light beam the speed relative to the Earth will be slower because light has to travel not only the distance between two points on Earth but also the distance the Earth moved in the time between the measurements at the two locations. When moving in the opposite direction the speed is higher because the speed of the Earth is added to and not subtracted from the speed of light. Take the difference of the two speeds and divide by two and you have the absolute speed of the earth. I'm basically just here hoping we can reach a conclusion or good discussion about the midpoint in absolute motion of energy and matter.

but originally in the beginning of my topic, I had a basic question that was only answered with more questions... I've noticed its easy for physicists to hypothesize about the speed of light even though in general physics an object cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, regardless of how much energy it absorbs. Its momentum and energy continue to increase, but its speed approaches a constant value – the speed of light. This means that in relativity the momentum of an object cannot be a constant times the velocity. Making travel at the speed of light nonsense as well.

My main question i wanted answered -
What would everything be like if E did not equal Mc2?

Much appreciated if answered thanks.

 

[Doc Al]

The waves that ripple out from a rock thrown in a pool are structurally similar to sound waves. When you speak the air vibrates with a pattern of pressure changes in the form of waves. Light was shown to have many of the properties of waves. Unlike sound light travels through empty space. Whatever contains the changing levels of pressure associated with a wave is called its medium of propagation. With sound this is air and with water waves it is water. Scientists naturally wondered what supports the propagation of light in empty space. They assumed there must exist such a medium and they called it the ether.

Science has marched on from those days.

The Earth circles the sun which in turn circles the galaxy which in turn moves away form neighboring galaxies. The absolute motion of the Earth relative to the ether must be very fast. By measuring the speed of light in one direction and then the opposite direction one should be able to determine the absolute motion of the Earth through the ether in that direction. When the Earth is moving in the same direction as the light beam the speed relative to the Earth will be slower because light has to travel not only the distance between two points on Earth but also the distance the Earth moved in the time between the measurements at the two locations. When moving in the opposite direction the speed is higher because the speed of the Earth is added to and not subtracted from the speed of light. Take the difference of the two speeds and divide by two and you have the absolute speed of the earth. I'm basically just here hoping we can reach a conclusion or good discussion about the midpoint in absolute motion of energy and matter.

All attempts to measure the speed of the Earth with respect to the hypothetical ether have failed. The speed of light relative to the Earth is always the same, regardless of the Earth's motion.

but originally in the beginning of my topic, I had a basic question that was only answered with more questions... I've noticed its easy for physicists to hypothesize about the speed of light even though in general physics an object cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, regardless of how much energy it absorbs. Its momentum and energy continue to increase, but its speed approaches a constant value – the speed of light. This means that in relativity the momentum of an object cannot be a constant times the velocity.

That's right. In relativity, the momentum of an object does not equal a constant times its velocity.

Making travel at the speed of light nonsense as well.

Right, no massive particles can move at the speed of light.

My main question i wanted answered -
What would everything be like if E did not equal Mc2?

Sorry, can't make any sense of this question. It's like asking: If things were different, what would they be like?

 

[Dale]

Its odd that no one here gets what I am talking about, any teachers here or actual physics students?

There are a few professors on these forums, several PhD-level physicists and engineers (including myself), a bunch of college graduate physicists and engineers, and boatloads of students. Perhaps you should check your assumption? Maybe the lack of understanding is due to poor questions rather than an uneducated audience.

Honestly, I think you just want a conversation rather than an educated response. So I think you would be better off finding a forum with lower standards where you will be more able to find like-minded individuals willing to ponder your "deep" musings.

 

[dainamiku]

There is no evidence to support this claim and it is counter to current mainstream physics so it does not belong on this forum.

I just want physics to get to the midpoint.
But zeno's paradox won't let that happen.

So ignoring, and denouncing this is the solution?

today I am ok, but sometimes i go mad like Georg cantor


this documentary explains better my concerns, any help much appreciated thanks.

 

[Red Fox]

I am convinced that this is either a troll, or a person who has misunderstood a great deal of physics and science.

 

[Reedeegi]

I just want physics to get to the midpoint.
But zeno's paradox won't let that happen.

So ignoring, and denouncing this is the solution?

today I am ok, but sometimes i go mad like Georg cantor


this documentary explains better my concerns, any help much appreciated thanks.

I'm sorry, but mathematics is not a physical science, nor will it ever be. While mathematics can often be used to describe physical phenomena, things such as Zeno's paradox do not hold in the real world. According to modern physics, you cannot infinitely divide a particle, there is some lower bound. Whether that bound is strings, quarks, or whatever, you cannot, by physics, subdivide them any further than the lower bound. The definition of an elementary particle is a particle with no known substructure. How can you divide something with no substructure? You can't!

Limits and differentials are mathematical objects used to formalize your "dividing infinitely," but you show only the intuitive, imprecise understanding of them. Before you argue about this subject, learn the formalism behind your intuition and you'll find that intuition can often lead you to such bizarre, erroneous conclusions as the ones that you've proposed.

I'd recommend that before you post such nonsense that you take rigorous courses in mathematics and physics.

 

[jreelawg]

So you have problem with i/x and x/i. i/x(x/i)=1

 

[DaveC426913]

There is a smallest unit of matter (the subatomic particles), and there is a largest unit of matter (the observable universe). It's not an infinite scale, so you shouldn't see any need to invoke a version of Zeno's paradox.

...zeno's paradox won't let that happen.

BTW, you do know that Zeno's paradox has a solution, right? It is only an apparent paradox. Achilles really does beat the arrow; the hare really does beat the tortoise, etc.

 

[Naty1]

If this isn't a troll, it's a person asking a serious question in a second or third language...Sometimes we can interpret between the lines, sometimes not. If I had to pose a question in a foreign language I'd never do as well as this individual. Glad we all use the same NUMBER system even if sometimes units may differ!

 

[jreelawg]

As you keep multiplying the scale of units of distance by 1/2, you also multiply the units of time it takes to move that far by 1/2. So as units of distance become infinitely small, the units of time become infinitely small as well. As you do this, the amount of time it takes to go from point A to point B stays the same because it is a ratio of distance and time. If you move at 1 meter per second, then you cross a midpoint at 1/2 meter per 1/2 second and so on. It just doesn't make sense to apply infinity because if the units of distance are infinitely small, you can pass them infinitely fast. What that really means is that you move zero distance instantly.

 

[DaveC426913]

As you keep multiplying the scale of units of distance by 1/2, you also multiply the units of time it takes to move that far by 1/2. So as units of distance become infinitely small, the units of time become infinitely small as well. As you do this, the amount of time it takes to go from point A to point B stays the same because it is a ratio of distance and time. If you move at 1 meter per second, then you cross a midpoint at 1/2 meter per 1/2 second and so on. It just doesn't make sense to apply infinity because if the units of distance are infinitely small, you can pass them infinitely fast. What that really means is that you move zero distance instantly.

Now you are simply pondering Zeno's paradox.

It has a solution. Just read up on it.

 

[jreelawg]

Now you are simply pondering Zeno's paradox.

It has a solution. Just read up on it.

"Aristotle remarked that as the distance decreases, the time needed to cover those distances also decreases, so that the time needed also becomes increasingly small.[12] Aristotle solves the paradoxes by distinguishing "things infinite in respect of divisibility" (such as a unit of space that can be mentally divided into ever smaller units while remaining spatially the same) from things (or distances) that are infinite in extension ("with respect to their extremities").[13][citation needed]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Proposed_solutions

 

[matheinste]

We have moved on a little since Aristotle.

Matheinste.

 

[jreelawg]

We have moved on a little since Aristotle.

Matheinste.

Care to update us to the modern solution?

 

[matheinste]

Almsot any mathematical analysis book dealing with limits and infinite series will provide this information. i find it hard to believe that you have not already sought such a solution from any source.

Matheinste.

 

[jreelawg]

Almsot any mathematical analysis book dealing with limits and infinite series will provide this information. i find it hard to believe that you have not already sought such a solution from any source.

Matheinste.

Your the one who knows the solution, and the OP asked the question. Physics forums wouldn't be very fun if every response to a question was answered "go look it up."

 

[matheinste]

Care to update us to the modern solution?

I was answering your question above because i felt it would be impolite not to.

I have nothing more of any use to add.

Matheinste.

 

[matheinste]

As requested by jreelawg for the original OP dainamiku here is an explanation of two Zeno's paradoxes. It is not pssible for me to praphrase the text to just deal with Achilles and the tortoise. Bear in mind that Reichenbach, as far as i know, is a philosopher rather than a physicist.

I have copied this extract in full although it may not all be relevant.


From Hans Reichenbach. The Direction of Time. Pages 5-6. Published in 1956 but this edition in 1971.

Zeno’s paradoxes of motion have often been discussed. He argues that if motion is travel from one point to another, a flying arrow cannot move as long as it is at exactly one point. But how then does it get to the next point? Does it jump through a timeless interval? Obviously not. Therefore motion is impossible. Or consider a race between Achilles and a tortoise, in which the tortoise is given a head strart. First Achilles has to reach the point where the tortoise started; but by then, the tortoise has moved to a farther point. Then Achilles has to reach that other point, by which time the tortoise again has reached a farther point; and so on, ad infinitum.Achilles would have to traverse an infinite number of non zero distances before he could catch up with the tortoise; this he cannot do, and therefore he cannot overtake the tortoise.

Concerning the arrow paradox, we answer today that the rest at one point and motion at one point can be distinguished. “Motion” is defined, more precisely speaking, as “travel from one point to another in a finite nonvanishing stretch of time”; likewise, “rest” is defined as “absence of travel from one point to another in a finite nonvanishing stretch of time”. The term “rest at one point at one moment” is not defined by the preceding definitions. In order to define it, we define “velocity” by a limiting process of the kind used for a differential quotient; then “rest at one point” is defined as the value zero of the velocity. This logical procedure leads to the conclusion that the flying arrow, at each point, possesses a velocity greater than zero and therefore is not at rest. Furthermore it is not permissible to ask how the arrow can get to the next point., because in a continuum there is no next point. Whereas for evry integer there exists a next integer, it is different with a continuum of points; between any two points there is another point. Concerning the other paradox, we argue that Achilles can catch up with the tortoise because an infinite number of nonvanishing distances converging to zero can have a finite sum and can be traversed in a finite time.

These answers, in order to be given in all detail, require a theory of infinity and of limiting processes which was not elaborated until the nineteenth century. In the history of logic and mathematics, therefore, Zeno’s paradoxes occupy an important place; they have drawn attention to the fact that the logical theory of the ordered totality of points on a line—the continuum—cannot be given unless the assumption of certain simple regularities displayed by the series of integers is abandoned. In the course of such investigations, mathematicians have discovered that the concept of infinity is capable of a logically consistent treatment, that the infinity of points on a line differs from that of the integers, and that Zeno’s paradoxes are not restricted to temporal flow, since they can likewise be formulated and solved for a purely spatial continuum.

As a footnote he adds. For a modern treatment of Zeno’s paradoxes , See Bertrand Russel, Our Knowledge of the External World.

Matheinste

 

[Austin0]

I'm sorry, but mathematics is not a physical science, nor will it ever be. While mathematics can often be used to describe physical phenomena, things such as Zeno's paradox do not hold in the real world.

Limits and differentials are mathematical objects used to formalize your "dividing infinitely," but you show only the intuitive, imprecise understanding of them. Before you argue about this subject, learn the formalism behind your intuition and you'll find that intuition can often lead you to such bizarre, erroneous conclusions as the ones that you've proposed.

.

I am curious as to your take on the infinite divisability and progression of velocities approaching the limit of c
Thanks