April 20th, 2014, 09:00 AM
So Einstein said that huge amounts of energy can make mass, and not sure where but I also heard that stuff was travling faster than the speed of light when the universe started, which requires insane amounts of energy, could this energy have made all the mass in the world today.
This theory says E=mc^2, therefore with no mass there is no energy. 0 times anything is still zero.
The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.Originally Posted by Mayflow
Are you sure you do not mean that E^2 = the rest? This is for a particle at rest only, I believe?
there would still be mass just the basis of the big bang would be energy, whithout mass what would he moving at the speed of light? (Rhetorical please dont answer with light or electrons)
This I wonder as well. I just can't fathom that there was nothing that caused the big bang universe (if this is one.)there would still be mass just the basis of the big bang would be energy, without mass what would be moving at the speed of light? (Rhetorical please don't answer with light or electrons)
After you added this, I feel compelled to say light, but not electrons.
As for the OP, yes, the Big Bang theory extend to just after the initial bang. That tiny ball contained all the energy in the universe today. Shortly after that, matter condensed out of it in a process called baryogenesis.
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By "light" do you implicate photon activity?After you added this, I feel compelled to say light, but not electrons.
As for the OP, yes, the Big Bang theory extend to just after the initial bang. That tiny ball contained all the energy in the universe today. Shortly after that, matter condensed out of it in a process called baryogenesis.
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not only that: ANY amount of energy implies an effect on mass according to E = mc². For example a charged battery has more mass than a discharged one - though you would struggle to measure the difference.
I think you have misunderstood what E=mc^2 refers to.
It is the mass-energy equivalence.
(In layman terms) this means that if you had a certain amount of mass, it could be converted into a certain amount of energy - and vise-versa.
It does not mean that if there is no mass then there is no energy.
Chemist, Probably the charged battery has more potential energy, but that I do not think it has more mass.
Last edited by Mayflow; April 20th, 2014 at 05:02 PM.
AlexG gave you the general, correct answer. It accounts for the energy of both massive and massless particles. It also properly handles the case where the former has a nonzero velocity with respect to your rest frame. It handles the important case of photons, which have no mass, but certainly have energy. Your use of only a subset of the correct equation is why RedPanda had to correct your statement that "no mass = no energy."
Red Panda, if E = 0*the speed of light squared, E = 0.
Technically, it's chemical energy.
No - it is a conversion equation.
Hopefully this question will help you understand:
If it takes 5 apples to make 1 apple pie, you could write that as
5 x A = P
This means that you can convert 5 apples into 1 pie.
Now - imagine that you have 10 apples.
How many apple pies do you have?
Why don't you re-read what AlexG wrote, rather than repeatedly making erroneous assertions? You're just getting in the way of answering the OP's question. It's fine if you don't know what you're talking about, but it's not fine that you keep injecting your misconceptions into another's thread.
Some have considered the possibility that the universe has zero energy. See, e.g., Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't know where you heard the bit about "stuff...traveling faster than the speed of light," but that's bollocks. Ignore whoever wrote that. Just take a look at the references listed at the end of the wiki entry above.
If I have 10 apples, I have 10 apples.What has that to do with pies? I don't want to make or eat pies unless I get like starved but then I would probably just eat the apples instead of making two pies out of them.
Ah...I see. You are just being a fuck-wit.
Carry on.
Trolling again.
This is frumpydolphin's topic - if he or she wants me to leave he or she has but to ask.
The thread may have been started by the OP, but this is a public forum. I believe adelady went to some lengths to explain this to you when you tried to assert "ownership rights" to a thread. I guess you weren't paying attention. If you say something stupid, offensive, or otherwise disruptive, the right to opine is not limited to the OP.
As I said: carry on.
Never let it be said that you haven't removed all doubt.
The thread may have been started by the OP, but this is a public forum. I believe adelady went to some lengths to explain this to you when you tried to assert "ownership rights" to a thread. I guess you weren't paying attention. If you say something stupid, offensive, or otherwise disruptive, the right to opine is not limited to the OP.
Member adelady has indeed explained that here (cf. post #71).
It is not your guy's topic not mine, it is FrumpyDolphin's topic. I will do as is the wish of the topic starter.
From post #71:
Forum members do not own their thread(s) in the same way that parents do not own their child(ren).
As I said, I will do as the topic starter wishes if he or she even wants to come back here again.
That's fine, but you would also do well to heed my advice about not posting bollocks, and accepting corrections when you do post bollocks. We all make mistakes, but you reject all efforts at correction.
If your skin is so thin as to be intolerant of criticism and correction, then you really have very few options. Simply declaring that you'll only heed the wishes of the OP is not going to work.
I will only comply with the wishes of the Originator of the topic's wishes. You do NOT belong here casting accusations at me on someone else's topic. Talk to the topic, not to me.That's fine, but you would also do well to heed my advice about not posting bollocks, and accepting corrections when you do post bollocks. We all make mistakes, but you reject all efforts at correction.
If your skin is so thin as to be intolerant of criticism and correction, then you really have very few options. Simply declaring that you'll only heed the wishes of the OP is not going to work.
They don't own the topic and they don't get to determine who can or cannot participate and in what way they are allowed to do so.I will only comply with the wishes of the Originator of the topic's wishes. You do NOT belong here casting accusations at me on someone else's topic. Talk to the topic, not to me.That's fine, but you would also do well to heed my advice about not posting bollocks, and accepting corrections when you do post bollocks. We all make mistakes, but you reject all efforts at correction.
If your skin is so thin as to be intolerant of criticism and correction, then you really have very few options. Simply declaring that you'll only heed the wishes of the OP is not going to work.
You can do whatever you wish (until, perhaps, your childish disruptions finally strain the moderators' patience beyond the breaking point) -- I can't control you. However, you seem not to understand the reciprocity of that arrangement.
Further, I make no accusations. It is a matter of scientific record that your statements regarding Einstein's equations are simply wrong. You stubbornly continue to ignore that fact. Perhaps you believe that ignoring your errors will somehow make you appear more credible as a source. I assure you that it works the other way. It shows that you are willing to sacrifice correctness and rigour for the petty and transient fantasy that you know what you're talking about.
As to "talking to the topic," that's precisely what I've done. I can't help it if you insist on injecting your noise into the topic. That will stimulate a correction from the science-minded denizens of this forum (and what's the name of the forum, again?).
Mayflow:
You just can't help yourself, can you? For the last time, thread starters do not own threads. Threads are required to be conducted according to the forum rules and norms, which means you are NOT free to inject misconceptions into every thread and then refuse correction. You are doing nothing other than a disservice to the OP. Stop now or face suspension.
Last edited by KALSTER; April 21st, 2014 at 05:04 AM.
Not quite, there are a couple of mistakes:The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.
Thanks for the always-eagle eyes, xyzt -- I mentally suppled the radical and square when I read the original.Not quite, there are a couple of mistakes:The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.
I know, funny how our subconscious covers up (compensates for) the mistakes :-)Thanks for the always-eagle eyes, xyzt -- I mentally suppled the radical and square when I read the original.Not quite, there are a couple of mistakes:The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.
Moderator Warning: To Mayflow - I wish to make explicit what Kalster has clearly implied.
1. Your contributions in this thread have been counterproductive because they have included false assertions.
2. You have exacerbated this by refusing to acknowledge those errors.
3. (You do not own this thread and nor does the OP.)
4. Only the following actions by you are acceptable: do not post in the thread again; or, post to acknowledge your errors; or, post with facts that match those of the world of science at large.
5. Any other action will result in a a suspension.
I believe it is also potential energy until the current has a path to flow in and it becomes kinetic energy.Technically, it's chemical energy.
No it doesn't.
You should have heeded John Galt's post.
This does seem like the correct formula in complete form. E =sqrt{ (mc^2)^2 + p^2c^2}I know, funny how our subconscious covers up (compensates for) the mistakes :-)Thanks for the always-eagle eyes, xyzt -- I mentally suppled the radical and square when I read the original.Not quite, there are a couple of mistakes:The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.
Despite agreeing with me (or just because of that), your claim above thatThis does seem like the correct formula in complete form. E =sqrt{ (mc^2)^2 + p^2c^2}I know, funny how our subconscious covers up (compensates for) the mistakes :-)Thanks for the always-eagle eyes, xyzt -- I mentally suppled the radical and square when I read the original.Not quite, there are a couple of mistakes:The correct equation is E = mc^2 + p^2c^2.
is still just as wrong, since, i.e., contrary to your incorrect claim,
.
Yes, in "light" of this momentum thing - my answer was incorrect and incomplete. I found what I think is a good and helpful explanation here...
Q & A: How does light have momentum without mass? | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Good. Thank you. Progress. Always welcome.
Amazing.
Really guys? I do not always understand what I see or hear, but xyzt made a good and reasonable post that I could learn and explore from.
I do not always have to understand to appreciate however as in this question I got wrong in a course
LIFE AS WE KNOW IT
(1 point possible)
Below is a list of possible ways in which the universe could have been different. Some of these changes would make life as we know it impossible in our universe.
Tick the boxes next to all the changes that would definitely make life as we know it impossible. You may assume that there were many more protons than neutrons even before neutrons start to decay.
I did get one right answer but apparently all are correct but the second one according to the teachers. Also I believe the topic had to do with Big Bang theory.
Decreasing the binding energy of deuterium, so that deuterium cannot form until an hour after the Big Bang.
Increasing the binding energy of deuterium so that it can form less than ten seconds after the Big Bang
Having a persistent perfect balance between antimatter and matter
Greatly increasing primordial fluctuations
Greatly decreasing primordial fluctuations
The problem is not that you might not know, it is that you assert stuff and refuse correction. Now that you have done so it is fine.
xyzt made a good correction/addition for my knowledge base. That is acceptable any time.
So whats the answer could the energy create all matter today, and for all the people arguing about Mayflow, as long as you guys stay on topic (arguing about the topic included) then you can stay but it appears to me that an argument off topic started a while back, please don't continue it.
Some of the matter that exists today was created by humans.
Using pre-existing energy.Some of the matter that exists today was created by humans.
Well....I geuss it would require insane amounts of energy, but, "The only thing impossible is impossibility"~ Phineas and Ferb
Yes - but not pre-existing matter.Using pre-existing energy.Some of the matter that exists today was created by humans.
The question was about matter, not energy.
No way - show me a reference that supports your case. Are you thinking about particles formed in the LHC machine?Yes - but not pre-existing matter.Using pre-existing energy.Some of the matter that exists today was created by humans.
The question was about matter, not energy.
You can't think of an example...
...but then provide an example.
Are you ok?
(And I think there are other examples of pair production.)
I was just trying to think what sort of matter you are thinking of. It's been a while since I've had to think about it.You can't think of an example...
...but then provide an example.
Are you ok?
(And I think there are other examples of pair production.)
So did you answer my question? "Show me a reference that supports your case. Are you thinking about particles formed in the LHC machine?"
Does it matter what kind of matter the matter is?
Yes.
Unununium was quoted as being man made but really how much of it was man-made?Does it matter what kind of matter the matter is?
Yes.
Chemical Elements.com - Unununium (Uuu)
You are not just talking about man-made compounds and isotopes are you?
I was talking about matter being made by humans, as you can see from what I wrote:
Something like this:
http://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract...RevA.87.062107
Robbitybob1, are you being deliberately obtuse?
We know that we have created matter from energy. You even gave an example. It does not matter what matter was produced in this way, since the single, central point was that man has made matter from energy. Yet you continue running around this established point with a bunch of irrelevancies. Why?
No, I was just wanting a simple answer as to what matter existing today was man-made. RedPanda said "Some of the matter that exists today was created by humans." I have accepted that could be true in nuclear reactors and particle accelerators.
The way in which you asked that question gave the impression that you doubted it was true. Your subsequent posts seemed to confirm this. I suspect Red Panda felt the same way and may have been puzzled and perhaps frustrated by it. (I would be interested to hear from Red Panda if my supposition is correct.) I do believe you are a sincere person RobbittyBob, but you don't half say some weird things in some very weird ways.
'Puzzlement' would probably best describe my emotional response to bob's replies.
Did you bother to read post #17? If not, you should. The answer to your question has been there for quite some time.
| « Spontaneous Emergence of the Universe | Complementarity with single slit diffraction » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
18Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
