Discover the Relationship Between E=mc2 and Time with m=1kg and d=1m

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Deepak K Kapur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    E=mc^2
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the equation E=mc² and time, specifically examining the implications of substituting variables for mass (m=1kg) and distance (d=1m) into the equation. Participants explore whether energy (E) can be considered inversely proportional to time based on these substitutions, delving into dimensional analysis and the nature of mass and speed.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that substituting c=d/t into E=mc² leads to E=m×d²/t², questioning if this implies E is inversely proportional to time.
  • Others argue that E is not inversely proportional to time, clarifying that E=md²/t² does not imply a constant relationship with time, as d is defined by d=ct.
  • A participant mentions that energy has a dimension of ##ML^2T^{-2}##, comparing it to kinetic energy, and suggests looking into dimensional analysis.
  • Some participants express confusion about the relationship between concrete and abstract entities in mathematical operations, particularly regarding mass and speed.
  • One participant calculates E based on the given values and the speed of light, concluding that the equation does not imply a direct relationship between energy and time.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the units in the equation must be considered and that the equation describes the speed of light rather than a direct motion of mass.
  • There is a discussion about whether science and mathematics focus on real entities or their properties, with differing views on the philosophical implications of this distinction.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the equation E=mc² when substituting specific values for mass and distance. There is no consensus on whether energy can be considered inversely proportional to time, and the discussion includes multiple competing interpretations of the relationships involved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the importance of considering units in equations and the definitions of variables, indicating that assumptions about the relationships between energy, mass, distance, and time are not universally agreed upon.

  • #61
russ_watters said:
No. In particular, you said in your first sentence that you understand proportionality, when clearly you do not*. And now that your error in understanding how proportionality works is shown plain, instead of learning from that, you want to ignore the issue. I'm not sure what more we can do for you if you won't correct errors in your understanding that you know exist.

*Note: it is actually worse than even that: Dale's post contained some basic algebra that you didn't understand, which was why I needed to simplify it for you.
Actually, in Dale's example, I just wanted to say that 2 can be used with h also instead of g. That makes no conceptual sense.
Anyway, thanks a lot. You people have done a lot for me.

Actually, I just wanted to explore the relation of mathematics with reality.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Deepak K Kapur said:
Actually, in Dale's example, i just wanted to say that 2 can be used with h also instead of g. That makes no conceptual sense.
Of course it can be used with h also. As I said, f is proportional to g and f is proportional to h. Therefore if you double g you must double f (not 1.5 times) and if you double h you must double f. That is what it means to be proportional to both g and h.
 
  • #63
Deepak K Kapur said:
In your case doesn't h get unnecessarily doubled when g is doubled?
No.
 
  • #64
Deepak K Kapur said:
Anyway, thanks a lot. You people have done a lot for me.

Actuallly, i just wanted to explore the relation of mathematics with reality...
Fair enough. My recommendation to you at this point is that because you don't understand basic math, you are nowhere close to being able to understand how math relates to reality. You should therefore start by taking some basic math courses (algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus), then follow them up with some basic science groundwork courses that show how math is used in science.

Until you've completed such courses, you are wasting your time (and ours) trying to deconstruct how equations work.

Perhaps the more fundamental problem is you seem very unwilling to learn. You'll need to overcome that first.

This thread has run its course and is therefore locked.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
10K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K