# Thread: Amateur : Isolate time from E=mc˛

1. I would like to know if there is mathematically possible to isolate time for the E=mc˛ equation?
Energy=mass.299792458meter/second˛
Can we isolate the seconds insteed of the energy?
Well I think it would be done by now if it was possible but I always ask myself. That question bothers me.

2.

3. Originally Posted by ryukishi
I would like to know if there is mathematically possible to isolate time for the E=mc˛ equation?
Energy=mass.299792458meter/second˛
Can we isolate the seconds insteed of the energy?
Well I think it would be done by now if it was possible but I always ask myself. That question bothers me.
Multiplying with seconds squared ,dividing by energy, and then taking the square root one should get:

seconds = square root of (299792458/energy)

4. just edited a copy out

5. Originally Posted by ryukishi
Can we isolate the seconds insteed of the energy?
I guess you can isolate the "second" part, but I'm not qualified to say if it'll make any sense. But if you can, it won't necessarily be the same "time" as an independent variable in some function.

Let denote the length constant 299,792,458 meters. And let denote the constant time of 1 second.

Again, I'm not sure if this holds any physical significance (I suspect not), but it was interesting working this kind of equivalence.

EDIT: Well, I made an idiotic mistake in my derivation. I'll try again in my next post.

6. It does not hold any significance, because E=mc2 is valid only for particles at rest. It is an energy relation, and has nothing to do with time.

7. Okay, I guess I'm not very bright as I made a simple mistake in my calculation.

So here's the (hopefully) right derivation:

- where denotes energy, denotes rest mass, denotes the length constant 299,792,458 meters, and denotes the temporal constant of 1 second.

8. I think it may actually merit some insight into something... That being that we can mathematically derive the time unit from an object's given energy and rest mass. However, by just looking at the dimensional analysis it doesn't look like a temporal constant would result... Thoughts?

9. Hi epidecus dont be harsh on yourself! Youre trying to help! All you can do is your best.
But I admit seeing something outside the square root worried me at first sight
My maths abilities are far under par. How could I make the mistake I asked.
Hopefully its true that you did the mistake. Or I shall stop trying to help ppl out.

Energy is basic I think ...but what is there in the formula are three components so it is reasonable to assume any component is the basic component... But ...eh...it seems doubtful one component CAN exist without implying the existence of the others... so what concept unites them all? Space?

Im not thinking clearly...any two implies the third so its three possibilites. At bottom of existence we have energy and time or energy and mass or time and mass. But its no progress we still have the same three components since energy and mass is time and so on.

But I think this isolation question was a good question. Ill give him a "like"

10. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
It does not hold any significance, because E=mc2 is valid only for particles at rest.
Hmm, surely the Special Theory entitles me to ask "at rest relative to what?"

If the answer is ""relative to itself" this seems vacuous. At rest "relative to a Lorentz frame in which it may be considered to be at rest" seems circular.

Is there a better way of phrasing this perhaps?

11. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
It does not hold any significance, because E=mc2 is valid only for particles at rest. It is an energy relation, and has nothing to do with time.
What do you mean? What "it" does not hold any significance? The formula? Please explain... It seems to me that if the formula gives the energy at rest then the total energy of a speeding particle is its speed times its restmass. Are there complications I dont see at the moment?

Lol. The Ops innocent looking question: How can time be isolated?
Is perhaps not answered by simple mathematics.

I think of our universe as Space/Time and its Energy... Is someting missing?
Isnt the energy of the speed of particles already accounted for in the amount of Energy?

Hey OP! Do you have a follow up question?

12. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
It does not hold any significance, because E=mc2 is valid only for particles at rest.
Hmm, surely the Special Theory entitles me to ask "at rest relative to what?"

If the answer is ""relative to itself" this seems vacuous. At rest "relative to a Lorentz frame in which it may be considered to be at rest" seems circular.

Is there a better way of phrasing this perhaps?
At rest relative to the frame in which the energy is measured.

13. Originally Posted by epidecus
I think it may actually merit some insight into something... That being that we can mathematically derive the time unit from an object's given energy and rest mass. However, by just looking at the dimensional analysis it doesn't look like a temporal constant would result... Thoughts?
1 How do we apply that on the universe: does it have anything else but "restmass"?
I mean: The total mass of the univers actually WAS calculated some ten years ago... I read that in New Scientist.

2 That I would like to see the three resulting equations when all components are isolated.
What happens if I try to put the right side results anywhere.

3 This dimensional analyse you did...How did you do it?
(Remember were working for a layman.)

14. Originally Posted by epidecus
I think it may actually merit some insight into something... That being that we can mathematically derive the time unit from an object's given energy and rest mass. However, by just looking at the dimensional analysis it doesn't look like a temporal constant would result... Thoughts?
1 How do we apply that on the universe: does it have anything else but "restmass"?
I mean: The total mass of the univers actually WAS calculated some ten years ago... I read that in New Scientist.

2 That I would like to see the three resulting equations when all components are isolated.
What happens if I try to put the right side results anywhere.

3 This dimensional analysis you did...How did you do it?
(Remember were working for a layman.)

15. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
It does not hold any significance, because E=mc2 is valid only for particles at rest.
Hmm, surely the Special Theory entitles me to ask "at rest relative to what?"

If the answer is ""relative to itself" this seems vacuous. At rest "relative to a Lorentz frame in which it may be considered to be at rest" seems circular.

Is there a better way of phrasing this perhaps?
Janus has already provided the answer. It is a good reminder that energy is a frame-dependent quantity. Different observers, with different motions relative to the object whose energy is under consideration, will measure different energy values.

16. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
It does not hold any significance, because E=mc2 is valid only for particles at rest.
Hmm, surely the Special Theory entitles me to ask "at rest relative to what?"

If the answer is ""relative to itself" this seems vacuous. At rest "relative to a Lorentz frame in which it may be considered to be at rest" seems circular.

Is there a better way of phrasing this perhaps?
Janus has already provided the answer. It is a good reminder that energy is a frame-dependent quantity. Different observers, with different motions relative to the object whose energy is under consideration, will measure different energy values.
Does that mean that the amount of energy is dependent on the observer?
Does it mean that there is no determinable value on the amount of energy our universe contains?

Isnt this a paradox? Will it mean that it also has no determinable size? And how about the age of the universe?

Its estimated to be circa 15 billion years old? Is that bullshit? The age of the universe exists only in the eye of the beholder? Sorry I cant accept! Not without proof. How many contradictions is needed to show something is wrong somewhere!

IS ENERGY A FRAME DEPENDENT QUALITY?
CAN THE UNIVERSE CONTAIN MORE ENERGY THAN IT CONTAINS?
Running faster produces more energy in our universe!

The media will get an orgasm!

Tell me that the amount of energy or the size and age of our universe is not an effect of observation?
I think this is news...if true.The media will get an orgasm!

Shall we tell the Media now or shall we give it a second thought?

17. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Hmm, surely the Special Theory entitles me to ask "at rest relative to what?"

If the answer is ""relative to itself" this seems vacuous. At rest "relative to a Lorentz frame in which it may be considered to be at rest" seems circular.

Is there a better way of phrasing this perhaps?
You are right in bringing this up. The answer is at rest relative to the observer who measures said energy.
Or perhaps I should have put it another way - it is valid for particles for which the momentum components of their momenergy 4-vector vanish.

18. Originally Posted by sigurdV
It seems to me that if the formula gives the energy at rest then the total energy of a speeding particle is its speed times its restmass. Are there complications I dont see at the moment?
The total energy of a particle is

wherein m0 is the invariant mass, c is the speed of light, and p is the momentum. For a particle at rest we have p=0, and this reduces to the familiar E=mc2. For a particle with vanishing mass ( m=0 ) such as a photon we get E=pc.

19. Originally Posted by sigurdV
Does that mean that the amount of energy is dependent on the observer?
Yes, energy is a frame-dependent quantity, however, invariant mass is not. Perhaps it is better seen if we bring our relation into a slightly different form :

As relative speed changes, energy changes, but so does momentum. The invariant mass m however remains the same for all observers, which is why it is called "invariant".

Does it mean that there is no determinable value on the amount of energy our universe contains?
No, that's not what it means. The situation here is rather complicated, because "the universe" is not an inertial reference frame, so the above relation does not hold. Also, when talking about the universe as a whole one needs to consider quantum effects, like vacuum energy.

Isnt this a paradox? Will it mean that it also has no determinable size? And how about the age of the universe?
See above.
I am not sure what this has to do with size or age.

IS ENERGY A FRAME DEPENDENT QUALITY?
Yes.

Running faster produces more energy in our universe!
No it doesn't, because in order to run faster you have to first expand energy in order to accelerate yourself. In other words, you have to add energy to the system - it does't just magically appear from nowhere.

Tell me that the amount of energy or the size and age of our universe is not an effect of observation?
There is no connection here to size or age.

20. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by sigurdV
Does that mean that the amount of energy is dependent on the observer?
Yes, energy is a frame-dependent quantity, however, invariant mass is not. Perhaps it is better seen if we bring our relation into a slightly different form :

As relative speed changes, energy changes, but so does momentum. The invariant mass m however remains the same for all observers, which is why it is called "invariant".

Does it mean that there is no determinable value on the amount of energy our universe contains?
No, that's not what it means. The situation here is rather complicated, because "the universe" is not an inertial reference frame, so the above relation does not hold. Also, when talking about the universe as a whole one needs to consider quantum effects, like vacuum energy.

Isnt this a paradox? Will it mean that it also has no determinable size? And how about the age of the universe?
See above.
I am not sure what this has to do with size or age.

IS ENERGY A FRAME DEPENDENT QUALITY?
Yes.

Running faster produces more energy in our universe!
No it doesn't, because in order to run faster you have to first expand energy in order to accelerate yourself. In other words, you have to add energy to the system - it does't just magically appear from nowhere.

Tell me that the amount of energy or the size and age of our universe is not an effect of observation?
There is no connection here to size or age.
Nice to hear! Theres some sense in this story then.
Energy gets strange... isnt it indestructible?
The same amount however you look at it?
Doesnt this effect thermodynamics?

Wasnt there only energy at big bang?
No matter yet there having mass?
Energy still remaining the same?
Any missing energy still here in form of mass?

This is confusing!
I get the feeling that I repeat
the same question again and again.

Invariant mass... ?
It will probably take a while to understand this.
Why can frame dependent energy
get invariant by forming mass?
(Btw Im not much helped by a formula
I must translate it into ordinary language.)
Where did Einstein present this?
(I never saw these thoughts before.)
Perhaps hidden in General Relativity somewhere?

I recall an article in New Scientist
claiming the total energy content was calculated.
Its a pity I lost it long ago...
Perhaps I misunderstood or it wasnt true?
(Btw I salute you for your patience

You dont have to rush through my questions.
I have difficulties in understanding this.

21. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
it is valid for particles for which the momentum components of their momenergy 4-vector vanish.
Momenergy? c'est quoi?. This is an unfamiliar term

22. Must be a typing error.

23.

24. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
it is valid for particles for which the momentum components of their momenergy 4-vector vanish.
Momenergy? c'est quoi?. This is an unfamiliar term
Must be a typing error.
No, it's not a typing error, it's a term which quite a few relativity textbooks use - it signifies the unification of momentum and energy into just one 4-vector, the momenergy 4-vector. See also the link which epidecus has provided in the last post.

25. (Btw Im not much helped by a formula
I must translate it into ordinary language.)
The basic idea is - energy and momentum change according to the state of relative motion of the observers who measure it. You can combine these two quantities into a 4-vector; this vector will then point into different directions depending on how it is observed. However, what does not change is the length of the vector, it is the same for all observers. That length is what is called the invariant mass; it is a measure of the total energy of a system, both mass energy and kinetic energy combined.

Where did Einstein present this?
He presented this in a paper entitled "Does the inertial of a body depend upon its energy content ?". You can find further information here :

Mass

I recall an article in New Scientist
claiming the total energy content was calculated.
Well, this would likely refer to the energy equivalent of the total mass in the observable universe. It is possible to estimate this to a certain degree.

26. Originally Posted by epidecus
I think it may actually merit some insight into something... That being that we can mathematically derive the time unit from an object's given energy and rest mass. However, by just looking at the dimensional analysis it doesn't look like a temporal constant would result... Thoughts?
But does "uncertainty" not play a role also" We can know its position or its speed, not both at the same time.

27. Originally Posted by Write4U
Originally Posted by epidecus
I think it may actually merit some insight into something... That being that we can mathematically derive the time unit from an object's given energy and rest mass. However, by just looking at the dimensional analysis it doesn't look like a temporal constant would result... Thoughts?
But does "uncertainty" not play a role also" We can know its position or its speed, not both at the same time.
I suppose the object looked at is big enough for uncertanties to vanish. But your objection should be valid for universes with very small diameters.

28. I am not a mathmatician and after the first couple posts I was lost, but I noted that they were working with time as a constant . Since this is a relativity equation isn't time a variable?

29. You appear to be forgetting that the "c" in the below mentioned formulas is a constant, the speed of light. There is no time variable in this equation which one could solve for. The m/s are merely the units for the speed of light.

30. Originally Posted by Sealeaf
I am not a mathmatician and after the first couple posts I was lost, but I noted that they were working with time as a constant . Since this is a relativity equation isn't time a variable?
I can see why you'd think that, as many relativistic equations do involve time as an independent variable.

But here, that's not the case. All we need is , that a photon will travel 299,792,458 meters in any given second of time.

31. It may also be in good spirit to note that I'm just a (curious) layman, if it's not obvious.

But does "uncertainty" not play a role also" We can know its position or its speed, not both at the same time.
Write4U, I don't know the answer to that. But I can say that I've always had the impression that the Uncertainty Principle is strictly quantum-mechanical, while Einstein's equivalence is strictly macro-relativistic. Which brings up the question... Are they?

32. Originally Posted by epidecus
It may also be in good spirit to note that I'm just a (curious) layman, if it's not obvious.

But does "uncertainty" not play a role also" We can know its position or its speed, not both at the same time.
Write4U, I don't know the answer to that. But I can say that I've always had the impression that the Uncertainty Principle is strictly quantum-mechanical, while Einstein's equivalence is strictly macro-relativistic. Which brings up the question... Are they?
I know this, any proposition of spacetime constants, such as absolute time, etc. cannot be in conflict with either. Thus our questions are valid IMO.

33. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
It does not hold any significance, because E=mc2 is valid only for particles at rest. It is an energy relation, and has nothing to do with time.
What has "nothing to do with" time? I dont suppose you can isolate time to check what constituents it contains?
So I wont challenge you to do that. We laymen cant help thinking that energy is the basic constituent of "existence".
And like the case was with the "indivisible "atom" we expect there to be no end to the story. The End.

Just kidding folks! Im infamous for my strange sense of humour. (among other things) Striking a tangent (Im supposed also to be impossible to understand) (I have no idea why) (I rarely retreat behind a formula) (Now youll stay warned?) (Hmmm... what was I supposed to say?

I hereby introduce the pair Einstein & Planck.

As you perhaps noticed the name of E is well known to the world. You will get banned if youre not reverent and enough devoted to it.
Tell em you suspect E didnt tell everything that need be said and youre in deep shit.
P on the other hand is free to ignore or pee on, it wont be noticed. P is only the inventor of 1/E...I mean Quantum Mechanics.
Their theories seem to somehow be in inverse relation to each other. (There! Now you should be able to (C) the (1/C)ense in my temporarily lapse into metaphorical phormality:"P=1/E")

Why "tangent"? Isnt the thinker as important as his thought? NOPE! Who the fellow was who told us the truth is irrelevant ...but not unconnected to the truth...its like a tangent...I felt... and didnt bother trying to prove it.

So why isnt P idolized? The truth is that his efforts were not initially appreciated by his PEErs...and as a consequence he hanged or shot himself... perhaps both to be sure about it.

The truth is slightly embarrasing to the scientific society so its not often told... nor reverred...
the moral is: dont tell the truth unless youre prepared to die for it! And my advice is:

34. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
You appear to be forgetting that the "c" in the below mentioned formulas is a constant, the speed of light. There is no time variable in this equation which one could solve for. The m/s are merely the units for the speed of light.
When you repeatedly "derive" you eventually hit rock bottom. What should be derivated to land on sea...err... I mean "C"?

Perhaps Im confusingly inexact?
Now: The rate of speed has something to do with speed.
Then: The rate of time has something to do with time.
And: The rate of change has something to do with change.

I hesitate to think about thinking...

35. Originally Posted by sigurdV
[Q

Just kidding folks! Im infamous for my strange sense of humour. (among other things)
You hardly need to point that out.
It is certainly very obvious to me altho' I might replace "strange" with "outstanding".

36. Originally Posted by Halliday
Originally Posted by sigurdV
[Q

Just kidding folks! Im infamous for my strange sense of humour. (among other things)
You hardly need to point that out.
It is certainly very obvious to me altho' I might replace "strange" with "outstanding".
Thank you Sir!
But please dont do any repeats
im working desperately as it is
not to drown in my own tears.

(just kidding
ill do anything
for good poetry)

((Except "poetizing"))

Im still swimming: Theres obviously readers!
Some understands some.
And some appreciates some...

Encore Messieurs! BtB!

Our OP has asked a very clever and clear question:

How do we isolate time...out of our equations?

He says (correctly i think) that it hasnt been done,

and that we should have heard about it, if it is possible.

No wonder the elite is on the move... pilgrimating in here.

Looking helplessly at each other...

Lets watch the proceedings, shall we?

38. Moderator thinks this thread has degenerated out of physics, let alone mathematics. I am minded to close. Any objections?

39. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Any objections?
None whatsoever.