# Thread: Does E=MC2 prove that matter is 4-dimensional?

1. Energy = mass x C squared. Is that right? Not a mathematician here and I am aware that this post enjoins the company of a lot of mathematically adroit talent. That means I get to ask a question I might get an answer to that I've not previously received an answer for...

In algebraic terms, is it not true that MC2=E? That's not the objective of my question, it's just a check point to see if I'm right in understanding that all factors in an algebraic equation are interchangeable, and no matter how the factors are arranged, the equation maintains its integrity.

If this is so, how is it that E=MC2, without the omnidirectional motion of matter, as C moves omnidirectionally, though at a much greater speed than what I am asking - doesn't matter have to be moving in order for light to be squared out of it? How is light moving omnidirectionally in a value of square, out of something that is - said and perceived to be - unmoving?

The light is omnidirectionally squared out of matter. Matter generates light but is said and perceived to be static and non-expanding.

Whereas, matter is said to be 4-dimensional, making allowance if not requirement for matter to be moving at right angles to all three of its recognized dimensions - where a fourth perpendicular applies to matter itself, corroborating what I believe explains how something that appears to be a static ('standing') field, may in fact be moving omnidirectionally as the light it generates does, but at a much slower speed...

If this reasoning is wrong, might someone please explain why, in the simplest of terms? Might there be a need for me to re-phrase the question?

Thank you for reading this missive.

RSVP  2.

3. That formula have to do with ur mass moving, because when ure talking relativity m is the mass of a object with mass m0 at sppeed V, wich equals to
m=m0/sqr(1-(v/c)²)

but the light thing bieng squared have nothing to do with its moving. its a physical constant with the units m/s
and then u have to check the units of a joule, wich is energy it have the units kg m²/s², wich is the same as kg (m/s)²
and then if u know some constants there isnt any other constant able to fit in this formula xept C. G already contain mass. h is the same etc. And if u only takes it times C wicth out scquaring it u gain momentum of somekind.

that formula is speed depended, but for v<<c its basacly m0c²+mv²/2 the total energy. hope ure reading this martillo  4. Hmmmm... I personaly think that the equation M=E/c² spurs the imagination more, since we are more used to working with mass than with energy. I like this more because it say that if you have some amount of energy, then it has a certain mass, which happens to be the energy divided by the speed of light squared.  5. Zelos:
Do I understand you correctly as saying that mass - in the formula E=MC2 - is moving? Algebraically I think it must be, but I do very little math. I have wondered for a long time about this question. There have been a variety of answers. I know you excel in math. Please respond.  6. yes, E=MC² is a moving mass, while E=M<sub>0</sub>C² is for mass that aint moving
M=M<sub>0</sub>/sqr(1-(v/c)²)  7. i don't know if anybody said this...i didn't really bother to read the replys...

isn't the 4th dimension....TIME  8. Originally Posted by jwong
i don't know if anybody said this...i didn't really bother to read the replys...

isn't the 4th dimension....TIME
of course, but if mass is measured to change as you get faster and you get faster with respect to time, then your mass will also change with respect to time.  9. Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
Zelos:
Do I understand you correctly as saying that mass - in the formula E=MC2 - is moving? Algebraically I think it must be, but I do very little math. I have wondered for a long time about this question. There have been a variety of answers. I know you excel in math. Please respond.
This formula is often misunderstood as I did in the past.
First some background info: energy and mass can be converted into eachother (mass<-->energy).

Second think about the aim of this formula, what is the aim of it, what does E mean??? Answer: E is the amount of energy that will be obtained when a mass (m) is converted into energie.

example:
suppose, your mass is 60 kg and I want to convert you into energy for some of my evil experiments. How much energy will I acquire?

60 (kg) x 299792458^2 (m/s)= 5.39x10^16 Joule.

So:
*****c is just a constant (electromagnetic radiation speed in vacuum)
*****this formula has nothing to do with the speed of mass
*****it is normally used in mass disappear in nuclear reactions  10. Originally Posted by jwong
i don't know if anybody said this...i didn't really bother to read the replys...

isn't the 4th dimension....TIME
Yes. Time is the 4th dimension and the (contested) statement that the 4th dimension includes gravity does include time.  11. Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
Energy = mass x C squared. Is that right? Not a mathematician here and I am aware that this post enjoins the company of a lot of mathematically adroit talent. That means I get to ask a question I might get an answer to that I've not previously received an answer for...

In algebraic terms, is it not true that MC2=E? That's not the objective of my question, it's just a check point to see if I'm right in understanding that all factors in an algebraic equation are interchangeable, and no matter how the factors are arranged, the equation maintains its integrity.

If this is so, how is it that E=MC2, without the omnidirectional motion of matter, as C moves omnidirectionally, though at a much greater speed than what I am asking - doesn't matter have to be moving in order for light to be squared out of it? How is light moving omnidirectionally in a value of square, out of something that is - said and perceived to be - unmoving?

The light is omnidirectionally squared out of matter. Matter generates light but is said and perceived to be static and non-expanding.

Whereas, matter is said to be 4-dimensional, making allowance if not requirement for matter to be moving at right angles to all three of its recognized dimensions - where a fourth perpendicular applies to matter itself, corroborating what I believe explains how something that appears to be a static ('standing') field, may in fact be moving omnidirectionally as the light it generates does, but at a much slower speed...

If this reasoning is wrong, might someone please explain why, in the simplest of terms? Might there be a need for me to re-phrase the question?

Thank you for reading this missive.

RSVP

Matter is not 4 dimensional, its space-time that is four dimensional. Matter can be either and two(like a sheet of paper) or three dimensional(you, planets, trees and everything)

E=mc^2 doesn't prove space-time is four diemnsional. On the contrary it is derived from the general theory of relativity which says that space time is four dimensional.

Try reading the book "Relativity:The special and general theory" by Albert Einstein.   12. Originally Posted by starry_eyed_guy
Matter is not 4 dimensional, its space-time that is four dimensional. Matter can be either and two(like a sheet of paper) or three dimensional(you, planets, trees and everything)

E=mc^2 doesn't prove space-time is four diemnsional. On the contrary it is derived from the general theory of relativity which says that space time is four dimensional.

Try reading the book "Relativity:The special and general theory" by Albert Einstein. quite right that e=mc<sup>2</sup> doesn't say that spacetime is 4 dimensional.

however i am curious as to how you come to the conclusion that matter is not 4 dimensional. matter is not exempt from time and it moves through it and fills the dimension, thus surely it has those same dimensions as spacetime.  13. When you walk or drive in a car you are moving through space-time. Does it make you 4 dimensional?   14. Originally Posted by starry_eyed_guy
When you walk or drive in a car you are moving through space-time. Does it make you 4 dimensional? in my unproffesional opinion... yes, yes it does  15. Drop a sheet of paper from your balcony to the ground. The sheet floats for a while in the air before peacefully settling down. Does that make the paper sheet 3 dimensional?  16. the sheet has allways been 3D  17. Energy is mass it means, E=mc^2.

There is no difference between mass and energy, ie.

Just as we move through time (which is a dimension), the photon moves through length (which is a dimension).

Energy is mass with switched dimensions. So there is no difference.  18. I have to dissaree with the common idea that the 4th dimension is time, but i think no. let us look at 2nd to 3rd dimensions. the 2nd is nought but a square and the 3rd a cube so we must ask ourselves what does time have to do with geometric shapes?

info fuond on
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver.../whatis4d.html  19. Dimensions are coordinates. 2D means 2 dimensions, length and width.
3D means 3 dimensions, length, width and height.

coordinate means direction. More or less.  20. Hi, I'm a high school student and I'm in the process of reading E=MC2 by David Bodanis. It describes how the equation came to be, and how all the symbols are involved. My question is why is it E=MC Squared and Not E=MC, can someone please direct me to any mathematical proof or something based on calculations, as the only example given in the book is that "it's the way of nature" or about a man dropping stones into clay and the faster they drop the more clay they displace. Is there any actual mathematical proof explaining this, besides the examples or "way of nature" or "it just is"? Something more theoretical and less logical.

Thank you very much.  21. Originally Posted by Orion89
Hi, I'm a high school student and I'm in the process of reading E=MC2 by David Bodanis. It describes how the equation came to be, and how all the symbols are involved. My question is why is it E=MC Squared and Not E=MC, can someone please direct me to any mathematical proof or something based on calculations, as the only example given in the book is that "it's the way of nature" or about a man dropping stones into clay and the faster they drop the more clay they displace. Is there any actual mathematical proof explaining this, besides the examples or "way of nature" or "it just is"? Something more theoretical and less logical.

Thank you very much.

For starters, look at the dimensions;

[E] = joules
[m] = kg
[c] = m/s

Put these together you get

E = mc^2 --> joules = kg*m^2/s^2

which is also

kg*m^2/s^2 = m*kg*m/s^2 = distance*force = work

and the unit of work is joules.

E = mc without the square doesn't work out dimensionally.

Cheers,
william  22. Thank you very much William. That explains it somewhat better. But besides the fact in unit conversion, is there any mathematical proof that the C should be squared.

P.S. Sry for being such a pest, if I am.  23. It is derived from integrating relativistic momentum
(F(mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) = mc^2*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) when the speed is zero, the energy is mc^2.  24. Thank you very much, that is exactly what I have been looking for.  25. S=space dimension;T=time dimension
1S
2S
3S
4T
5S
6S
7S
8T
9S(or somthing else)
Space is 6dimensional time is 3dimensional
time holds space eventhough time dosnt hold gravety(meanig Space beeing a possible wave)
Im gonna try to make a example tommorrow  26. also, dimensions are nothing but defenition.

what is 1d?
in the 1d universe there is there and not there.
the first d could also be time cince without it, objects would not exist, if not using the first (time) dimension.
cince all visable things are bound to time, it seems that time would be the first d.

if time did not have gravety it would be possible for an object to go to any kind of point on the time achse.
this makes it impossible for time not to have gravety.
the universe is "falling" though a sort of space, causing a sort of time, meanig that time is like space, just that the whole universe(not including the Td's)is falling though time(theoretically), so no object could just stand still in time.

bending time is this why because the "fall" though time is slower than the others,and puts you also on a other coordinate in time(eventhough very little)

a little biology why we are not able to see into the future:
time is expierienced as a stream, because we as lifeforms, didn't have the need for a view in the future, cince time dilation is to minimal, occured on earth.Also seeing further into the future than time dilated beeings is mipossible since the objects are falling and not in future, already existed.
It is also impossible to time travel(you can do it but the rest of the universe will not come with)

allitle off topic, but i just came up with this!!! and it propves why timetravel is impossible  27. Doesn't Einstein's work prove that matter is included in the 4-D space-time continuum, therefore proving that all of the formerly perceived, physical 3-D universe is actually four dimensional? And, that this 4th dimension is time (and motion - synonymous with time)? As to how and why 'gravity is the 4th dimension' - the space limitations of the incumbent format require referencing the reader to the following link:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.[url] Contributions and/or constructive criticism is welcomed at that forum location.  Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement