Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Did Einstein get it wrong?

  1. #1 Did Einstein get it wrong? 
    Forum Freshman asxz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ths world of science
    Posts
    83
    I was thinking the other day, and I thought about how light travels in circles. If you look at a candle in the dark, you see a small circle of light; the sun emits light in a sphere, and so on. So if light works in a circle, then how come it is E=MC^2, and not something like E = m c π r 4, which is how you find the surface area of a sphere? (Where 'π' = Pi, r = radius, and the others remain unchnged)

    Could you please explain to me if I am wrong, and if so then how?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Did Einstein get it wrong? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by asxz
    I was thinking the other day, and I thought about how light travels in circles. If you look at a candle in the dark, you see a small circle of light; the sun emits light in a sphere, and so on. So if light works in a circle, then how come it is E=MC^2, and not something like E = m c π r 4, which is how you find the surface area of a sphere? (Where 'π' = Pi, r = radius, and the others remain unchnged)

    Could you please explain to me if I am wrong, and if so then how?
    I think the circle is actually an illusion of photons slowely seperating from the source.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Did Einstein get it wrong? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by asxz
    I was thinking the other day, and I thought about how light travels in circles. If you look at a candle in the dark, you see a small circle of light; the sun emits light in a sphere, and so on. So if light works in a circle, then how come it is E=MC^2, and not something like E = m c π r 4, which is how you find the surface area of a sphere? (Where 'π' = Pi, r = radius, and the others remain unchnged)

    Could you please explain to me if I am wrong, and if so then how?
    I think the circle is actually an illusion of photons slowely seperating from the source.
    In fact, supposing i am correct, you might even get an equation to come out of the critical radius of illumination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Did Einstein get it wrong? 
    Forum Freshman asxz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ths world of science
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by asxz
    I was thinking the other day, and I thought about how light travels in circles. If you look at a candle in the dark, you see a small circle of light; the sun emits light in a sphere, and so on. So if light works in a circle, then how come it is E=MC^2, and not something like E = m c π r 4, which is how you find the surface area of a sphere? (Where 'π' = Pi, r = radius, and the others remain unchnged)

    Could you please explain to me if I am wrong, and if so then how?
    I think the circle is actually an illusion of photons slowely seperating from the source.
    In fact, supposing i am correct, you might even get an equation to come out of the critical radius of illumination.
    So what does that mean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    I was thinking the other day, and I thought about how light travels in circles. If you look at a candle in the dark, you see a small circle of light; the sun emits light in a sphere, and so on. So if light works in a circle, then how come it is E=MC^2, and not something like E = m c π r 4, which is how you find the surface area of a sphere? (Where 'π' = Pi, r = radius, and the others remain unchnged)
    You seem to be confusing the mass-energy equivalence with the light emitted through chemical reactions. The mass-energy equivalence simply gives us the amount of energy of an object with a certain mass; the light, emitted, however, is due to the acceleration of electrons during combustion.

    If you wish to use E=mc^2, you can only find out how much energy an electron, atom/ molecule has, and so on, or how much energy it will be converted into. Light from a candle doesn't follow Einstein's equation, because einstein's equation isn't meant to be applied to it.

    Further, light doesn't work in a sphere; it appears to do so because individual photons are being radiated in all directions, forming, effectively, a bright sphere.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Did Einstein get it wrong? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by asxz
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by asxz
    I was thinking the other day, and I thought about how light travels in circles. If you look at a candle in the dark, you see a small circle of light; the sun emits light in a sphere, and so on. So if light works in a circle, then how come it is E=MC^2, and not something like E = m c π r 4, which is how you find the surface area of a sphere? (Where 'π' = Pi, r = radius, and the others remain unchnged)

    Could you please explain to me if I am wrong, and if so then how?
    I think the circle is actually an illusion of photons slowely seperating from the source.
    In fact, supposing i am correct, you might even get an equation to come out of the critical radius of illumination.
    So what does that mean?
    What's puzzled you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Did Einstein get it wrong? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by asxz
    I was thinking the other day, and I thought about how light travels in circles. If you look at a candle in the dark, you see a small circle of light; the sun emits light in a sphere, and so on. So if light works in a circle, then how come it is E=MC^2, and not something like E = m c π r 4, which is how you find the surface area of a sphere? (Where 'π' = Pi, r = radius, and the others remain unchnged)

    Could you please explain to me if I am wrong, and if so then how?
    Light travels in straigt lines, it does not bend nor can it be bent, if you perceive the path of light being a little kinky, watch out for the huge mass nearby which is curving space time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Did Einstein get it wrong? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by asxz
    I was thinking the other day, and I thought about how light travels in circles. If you look at a candle in the dark, you see a small circle of light; the sun emits light in a sphere, and so on. So if light works in a circle, then how come it is E=MC^2, and not something like E = m c π r 4, which is how you find the surface area of a sphere? (Where 'π' = Pi, r = radius, and the others remain unchnged)

    Could you please explain to me if I am wrong, and if so then how?
    Light travels in straigt lines, it does not bend nor can it be bent, if you perceive the path of light being a little kinky, watch out for the huge mass nearby which is curving space time.
    You are wrong that curved paths are not real, but you would have most certainly been correct if you had said, ''Nevertheless, the shortest distance between two points will always be a straight line,'' :-D . Not everyone knows that, and it's quite ineteresting, at least, i think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Did Einstein get it wrong? 
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by asxz
    I was thinking the other day, and I thought about how light travels in circles. If you look at a candle in the dark, you see a small circle of light; the sun emits light in a sphere, and so on. So if light works in a circle, then how come it is E=MC^2, and not something like E = m c π r 4, which is how you find the surface area of a sphere? (Where 'π' = Pi, r = radius, and the others remain unchnged)

    Could you please explain to me if I am wrong, and if so then how?
    Light travels in straigt lines, it does not bend nor can it be bent, if you perceive the path of light being a little kinky, watch out for the huge mass nearby which is curving space time.
    You are wrong that curved paths are not real, but you would have most certainly been correct if you had said, ''Nevertheless, the shortest distance between two points will always be a straight line,'' :-D . Not everyone knows that, and it's quite ineteresting, at least, i think.
    I think he meant exactly what you just said. Gravity is a bending of space, which light simply follows. Light itself isn't bent. In fact, I think talking about bending light becomes meaningless if not seen in this way.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I recall from a long time ago a quote allegedly from Einstein. "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but some straight lines are necessarily curved."
    It appealed to my sense of contemplating two apparently mutually exlcusive concepts simultaneously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I recall from a long time ago a quote allegedly from Einstein. "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but some straight lines are necessarily curved."
    It appealed to my sense of contemplating two apparently mutually exlcusive concepts simultaneously.
    Then it is decided.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I recall from a long time ago a quote allegedly from Einstein. "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but some straight lines are necessarily curved."
    It appealed to my sense of contemplating two apparently mutually exlcusive concepts simultaneously.
    I heard a similar quote The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but some straight lines are straighter than others

    The shortest route between London and Sidney is a straight line, the quickest curves round the surface of the earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    It's talking about curvature. In Euclidean space straight lines are the shortest distance. But in non Euclidean space, eg: positively curved or negative curved space, the shortest distance is a curve.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    refraction is a form of 'light bending', is it not?

    Quote Originally Posted by asxz
    I was thinking the other day, and I thought about how light travels in circles. If you look at a candle in the dark, you see a small circle of light; the sun emits light in a sphere, and so on. So if light works in a circle, then how come it is E=MC^2, and not something like E = m c π r 4, which is how you find the surface area of a sphere? (Where 'π' = Pi, r = radius, and the others remain unchnged)

    Could you please explain to me if I am wrong, and if so then how?
    You are thinking of the wave front of EM radiation, rather than either particles or rays. In truth, all waves can be expressed as either of these 3 forms seperately, but only one at once. So, considering the wave front, a photon is meaningless, whilst considering a photon makes the wave front meaningless. A ray also excludes both of these, and is exluded by them.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    refraction is a form of 'light bending', is it not?
    Lol, yes, but it doesn't curve.

    Light travels in straigt lines, it does not bend nor can it be bent, if you perceive the path of light being a little kinky, watch out for the huge mass nearby which is curving space time.
    Would have to be quite a huge mass; even the sun can only produce a bending of about one arc-second. A candle simply cannot produce any noticeable light curvature.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,191
    Did Einstein get it wrong?
    Absolutely!

    He should never left his steady and secure job at the patent office and trade it in for the insecure existence as a scientist.

    He got lucky, but God doesn't play dice. You don't read about the cases where it all went horribly wrong.

    bad bad einstein.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman asxz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ths world of science
    Posts
    83
    What I really mean is:

    How does Einstein's equation apply to the speed of light squared, when - as you have all pointed out - it travels in a straight line in all directions.(This is what creats the illusion of the candle I originally pointed out) At least it should be the speed of light cubed ( implying that it is sent in all direction, left right, up, down, forwards and backwards.) or the speed of light x pi x 4 (which is how you would get the surface area of a circle as big as the distance that light can travel in a second.)

    Because surely the energy given off in photons would be spent in all directions, and not just left/right, forwards/backwards as the ^2 would suggest.

    Does that make sense/clear it up?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    The squaring eliminates the direction bias, actually. Think of it in terms of kinetic energy: 1/2 m v^2. v is velocity, which is a vector (has a direction and a magnitude). So why is kinetic energy a scalar and not a vector (why is it a number and not a number and direction)? Because by squaring velocity you're making the directional component meaningless (same answer regardless of direction). It's kind of a neat trick really

    Another way: light doesn't travel in a circle, it travels in a sphere (we live in a 3D spatial universe). The surface area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2. Notice the squared term again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by asxz
    What I really mean is:

    How does Einstein's equation apply to the speed of light squared, when - as you have all pointed out - it travels in a straight line in all directions.(This is what creats the illusion of the candle I originally pointed out) At least it should be the speed of light cubed ( implying that it is sent in all direction, left right, up, down, forwards and backwards.) or the speed of light x pi x 4 (which is how you would get the surface area of a circle as big as the distance that light can travel in a second.)

    Because surely the energy given off in photons would be spent in all directions, and not just left/right, forwards/backwards as the ^2 would suggest.

    Does that make sense/clear it up?
    The exponent of a constant within a mathematical equation is not necessarily linked to a meaning you are implying. c is a universal constant that appears very often in many equations without actually saying anything about light itself. Just like this famous equation that actually should be . It applies to matter, not photons necessarily. Would you say that matter travels with the speed of light? Not really. By the way: You could also change the formula to without changing the meaning. The other thing is that the units have to fit. An energy has the unit Joule: A cubed velocity just does not make sense. Like numsgil correctly pointed out: This is the same even in classical mechanics, where the kinetic energy of a particle also scales with its velocity squared.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
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
  •