implications of E=MC2...

[floyd]

did anyone see the recent PBS show on einstein and faraday? what did you think?

do you agree that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe?

according to the show maxwell thought that you could approach but never catch up to the speed of light. einstein's E=MC2 theory implies that when you hit the speed of light, any extra energy beyond that is converted into mass.

so basically all matter at the atomic level is held together at the speed of light. what distinquishes animate life from a rock is our ability to direct our matter, our material autonomy. however, the speed at which we can direct our matter is so much slower than the speed of light (the speed of what holds us together). i wonder if that huge gap is a reflection on how limited current animate life is. i wonder if the end point of evolution is animate life which can direct it's matter at the speed of light and beyond (creating matter at will with any excess energy).

of course, this still brings up the question of what is the source of energy.

what are your thoughts/speculations/theories on E=MC2?

more info...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

[CoHo]

I don't know... here's an uneducated question:

wasn't everything moving faster then the speed of light the moments after the big bang?

[NoahFence]

I don't know... here's an uneducated question:

wasn't everything moving faster then the speed of light the moments after the big bang?
No. But matter didn't form for a while, so everything was basically light until then.

[panda]

I don't know... here's an uneducated question:

wasn't everything moving faster then the speed of light the moments after the big bang?

Here's a response to that question I found from a quick google search: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=167

So, if I'm understand correctly, the answer is yes (according to inflationary theory).


EDIT: However, inflationary cosmology strikes me as completely ad hoc, which makes me suspicious. The fact of the matter is that all of humanity's theories about the origin of the universe are absurdly tentative.

[NoahFence]

Hmm, interesting, I'd never heard that before. I don't buy it, incidently...it's "too neat" an explanation, and seems to solve the problem by "cheating" in my view. But I'll grant that I'm no expert, and some experts think it works, so there ya go.

[NoahFence]

Actually one problem here is how to define "speed" when distance itself is being distorted. The expansion of the universe is creating more space, thus more distance. If speed is change in distance over time...how the hell do you measure it?

Take a tiny toy car. Put it on a rubber band. Hit the gas pedal! And simultaneously stretch the rubber band. Do you judge the speed by the spedometer of the car, by how far it is from the end of the rubber band compared to when it started, or by where it is in relation to your eyes? By any of these measures, the exact same phenomenon could be moving forward, backward, or standing still.

[NoahFence]

And oh yeah...space is not expanding. Everything in it is just shrinking.

[panda]

And oh yeah...space is not expanding. Everything in it is just shrinking.
Nice. :)

[Maniac]

No. But matter didn't form for a while, so everything was basically light until then.

Let there be light...

[Hexchild]

I read up a bit on some of Einstein's theories a while back and came to my own conclusions. I don't claim to be an expert here, but here's how I interpreted the relationship between force, acceleration, movement energy and velocity, and the "speed limit" of C:

- Force affects movement energy rather than velocity. Velocity doesn't really exist as a fundamental concept. By extension neither does acceleration.

- Movement energy is (at least on the macro scale) a three-dimensional vector.

- Movement energy is a relative concept. That is, it's relative to that of all other particles. You can't measure or describe movement energy without a reference frame to compare it with.

- A particle's own reference frame is the one system where its own movement energy is a zero-length vector. Or more correctly, with rotation you get an infinite set of systems, but the rules are the same regardless of rotation.

- Velocity (and thus speed) is a byproduct of movement energy. If you plot a curve of speed over the "length" of the relative movement energy vector, this curve converges at the speed of light.

- Because movement energy is relative, particles whose relative movement energy is a very short vector will appear to have non-relativistic velocities, while particles whose relative movement energy is a very long vector will see each other moving virtually at the speed of light.

- Movement energy has no limit. You can "accelerate" forever, assuming you have the energy to spend on said acceleration.


I view velocity analogous to how a textured surface looks through a magnifying glass. You know the way that you can see straight through its center, while light gets refracted towards the edges making things look more compressed that they really are. And as you move the magnifier around, some of the compressed parts of what you see become clear while what was clear ends up being compressed. This would be analogous to what happens during acceleration.

[NoahFence]

- Movement energy has no limit. You can "accelerate" forever, assuming you have the energy to spend on said acceleration.
*Nod nod*

It's like absolute zero. You never get there, you just get closer and closer, and the fraction's denominator keeps getting larger.

[Hexchild]

*Nod nod*

It's like absolute zero. You never get there, you just get closer and closer, and the fraction's denominator keeps getting larger.

Yes, but as I understand it movement energy is linear, while velocity is not (so what you're describing is how velocity behaves).

[jyakulis]

In modern particle accelerators they have been able to accelerate one to 99.9 % the speed of light but never able to reach it no matter how much juice they put in it.

[Hypnos]

do you agree that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe?
No. It certainly seems like it is most situations and relativity is a smashing success, but there's the little problem of superluminal communication in EPR experiments.


according to the show maxwell thought that you could approach but never catch up to the speed of light. einstein's E=MC2 theory implies that when you hit the speed of light, any extra energy beyond that is converted into mass.
More accurately: mass is inertia, i.e. resistance to momentum. In relativity, as momentum increases, masses increases correspondingly so the speed can only asymptotically approach that of light.


so basically all matter at the atomic level is held together at the speed of light.
Sort of. Nuclear constituents move quite fast, as do the lowest shell electrons in heavy atoms. Atoms themselves don't move that fast in most situations.


what distinquishes animate life from a rock is our ability to direct our matter, our material autonomy.
That's spurious. Are volcanos animate, or even alive?

A biologist I heard once gave a better description: something is alive if it maintains a thermochemical equilibrium different from its physical environment.


however, the speed at which we can direct our matter is so much slower than the speed of light (the speed of what holds us together). i wonder if that huge gap is a reflection on how limited current animate life is. i wonder if the end point of evolution is animate life which can direct it's matter at the speed of light and beyond (creating matter at will with any excess energy).
I think the last part makes sense -- when will matter-energy conversion come under our complete control, like a microwave oven, or perhaps even part of our own bodies? Good question.


of course, this still brings up the question of what is the source of energy.
First we need a sufficiently potent energy source (say, fusion), then a technology to store the necessary energy in a small place. Some advance comparable to gasoline over peat or wood.

[kuranes]

The new field of plasma exploration seems to hold some promise.

[Hypnos]

The new field of plasma exploration seems to hold some promise.
Do you mean plasma acceleration?

[kuranes]

Plasma acceleration is one area that I've noticed, although I think there may be only one facility which is PBWA accomodating/equipped.

Then there is the Wendelstein 7-X, the work being done with plasma to dispose of nuclear waste, and other things.

Use a plasma torch is something I'd like to have in the field of art too, as it functions as a kind of "jigsaw" for metal.

[PenguinHunter]

There is a hypothetical particle called aTachyon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon) that I read about while trying to understand string theory. It sounds pretty interesting but I don't fully understand everything. In fact, I probably understand a lot less than I think I do. If you have any further questions feel free to ask Hypnos.

[Architectonic]

And oh yeah...space is not expanding. Everything in it is just shrinking.

Or the universe is leaking energy. ;)

[Hypnos]

There is a hypothetical particle called aTachyon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon) that I read about while trying to understand string theory. It sounds pretty interesting but I don't fully understand everything. In fact, I probably understand a lot less than I think I do. If you have any further questions feel free to ask Hypnos.
No one understands the tachyon, a particle with negative mass.

If your theory spits out a tachyon most take it as a sign that something is broken. Maybe one day when there's enough experimental data to guide our investigations in gravity, we'll begin to understand the validity of the tachyon.

[kuranes]

No one understands the tachyon, a particle with negative mass.

If your theory spits out a tachyon most take it as a sign that something is broken. Maybe one day when there's enough experimental data to guide our investigations in gravity, we'll begin to understand the validity of the tachyon.
What do you study as a professorial sub-specialty? Within the field of Physics, that is.

[Hypnos]

What do you study as a professorial sub-specialty? Within the field of Physics, that is.
Particle theory.

[kuranes]

Particle theory.

Any exotic things coming down the road in that area that we can hear about first from you? I've seen people talking about the "paired electron" possibilities, but also thought I'd seen much of this debunked, perhaps by you, yourself. I don't remember.

[Hypnos]

Any exotic things coming down the road in that area that we can hear about first from you? I've seen people talking about the "paired electron" possibilities, but also thought I'd seen much of this debunked, perhaps by you, yourself. I don't remember.
Well, I'm working on a project exploring the idea that leptons like electrons are in fact composites of other objects.

In general, though, theory has raced ahead of experiment. Many ideas will be falling by the wayside as the LHC and the next generation of cosmic particle detectors come on line.

[kuranes]

Well, I'm working on a project exploring the idea that leptons like electrons are in fact composites of other objects.

In general, though, theory has raced ahead of experiment. Many ideas will be falling by the wayside as the LHC and the next generation of cosmic particle detectors come on line.

Sounds interesting. Can you summarize some of the major points or hypotheses involved in it?

[Hypnos]

Sounds interesting. Can you summarize some of the major points or hypotheses involved in it?
Motivations for leptons and quarks having yet smaller constituents:

* Why do "point" particles with "spin" have dipole magnetic moments? What if we discover higher electromagnetic moments, like quadrupole and octopole? This suggests intraparticle structure.

* Quarks, leptons and neutrinos are neatly arranged by nature in 3 sets, each with 2 quarks of +2/3 and -1/3 in charge, a -1 charged lepton (electron, muon, or tau), and a neutrino associated exclusively with the lepton. Moreover, the charges in each set are such that "anomalies" (violations in the symmetry principle of the electroweak force) cancel perfectly. Why this miracle? Maybe there is some ordering due to a deeper principle governing constituent particles.

The analogy might be the periodic table of the elements. Only later we learned that there are nuclei of increasing of positive charge and electron "shells."

[kuranes]

Motivations for leptons and quarks having yet smaller constituents:

* Why do "point" particles with "spin" have dipole magnetic moments? What if we discover higher electromagnetic moments, like quadrupole and octopole? This suggests intraparticle structure.

* Quarks, leptons and neutrinos are neatly arranged by nature in 3 sets, each with 2 quarks of +2/3 and -1/3 in charge, a -1 charged lepton (electron, muon, or tau), and a neutrino associated exclusively with the lepton. Moreover, the charges in each set are such that "anomalies" (violations in the symmetry principle of the electroweak force) cancel perfectly. Why this miracle? Maybe there is some ordering due to a deeper principle governing constituent particles.

The analogy might be the periodic table of the elements. Only later we learned that there are nuclei of increasing of positive charge and electron "shells."

Cool.