The Universe

[Eisegerwind]

Two things here, = doesn't mean same as, take out the constant and you have E is proportional to M.

[bajin]

Mathematically, it is an acceptable trick which saves labour. Physically it represents a loss of information and leads to confusion. The introduction of dimensionless units is a sleight of hand used by theoretical physicists who are often prone to assume (wrongly) that any algebraically correct equation can be made physically (ie dimensionally) correct merely by wishing suitable units into existence.

Just because the equation can be manipulated mathematically to make the calculations easier, does not mean that Energy equals Mass. This is an example of the loss of information which the mathematical manipulation brings into play.

I think you're quoting Wesson here, but it's not an opinion that everyone agrees with. Here's a different interpretation.

In special relativity, energy and mass are just different manifestations of the same thing, as are time and distance. So when you set c=1 you are not saying that c = 1 light year per year, or 1 light second per second, but simply c = 1, period. It's dimensionless (in this unit system). So energy does equal mass (in Planck units). We should be careful to point out that this does not mean that x joules = y kg, by the way.

I was digging around online looking for a good way to explain this and found the following. It says what I was trying to get at in a clearer way.

A more radical point of view is that in natural units, c=1, period. Not one light years per year, not one light second per second, just a unitless one. Per this point of view, insisting on seeing c as having dimensions of length/time is "unnatural".

In special relativity, time and distance are different aspects of the same thing. For example, one way to look at the Lorentz transformation is that it is a hyperbolic rotation in space-time. This is perhaps a trick that happens to work if one views time and distance as having different units. It is anything but a trick if views time and distance as being different aspects of the same thing.

By way of analogy, look at how Americans customarily measure mass and force. US customary units have the pound mass as the unit of mass and the pound force as the unit of force. This means one has to resort to F=kma to represent Newton's second law. That k is the constant of proportionality that relates the fundamentally different quantities of force, mass, and acceleration. The metric system uses F=ma. The constant of proportionality has vanished. It's still there, hiding, but it's numeric value is one. The key question is whether that constant of proportionality is a unitless one or is the dimensioned quantity one newton / (one kilogram * one meter/second²). The modern view is that it's a unitless one. Per this modern point of view, force and mass times acceleration are different aspects of the same thing. A system of units that views force as something distinct from the product of mass and acceleration is archaic and inconsistent.

Those customary units of the pound mass and the pound force are an archaic set of units that are fundamentally inconsistent with respect to Newtonian mechanics. The metric system is a consistent set of units, but only with respect to Newtonian mechanics. With respect to modern physics, it too is an archaic and inconsistent set of units. From the perspective of special relativity, time and distance are different aspects of the same thing. Energy, mass, and momentum are also different aspects of the same thing. The speed of light must necessarily be a unitless one to express these relationships in their proper form.

[Orraloon]

I think you're quoting Wesson here, but it's not an opinion that everyone agrees with. Here's a different interpretation.

Aye, he's a very clever fella.

Do you really believe that Energy equals Mass?

[mariokempes56]

Do you really believe that Energy equals Mass?

Popist

[bajin]

Aye, he's a very clever fella.

Do you really believe that Energy equals Mass?

he's a smart guy, no doubt.

I believe Planck energy equals Planck mass. Dunno if that quite answers your question though

[thplinth]

Here is one for Scotty...

Check out this bad boy:

1000000000000066600000000000001

That is a 1 followed by 13 zeros, then 666, followed by 13 zeros and then ending on a 1.

Now not only is that a palindromic number is also a prime number (Belphegor's Prime).

Spoooooky.

[thplinth]

I like the Terence McKenna quote regarding Science & the big bang theory...

"Give us one free miracle and we will explain the rest".

[thplinth]

Do you really believe that Energy equals Mass?

Well yes. I would maybe describe matter as 'condensed energy'. I wonder if mass is actually energy trapped in a 'standing wave' (bounded by 'opposite' charges) and this standing wave pattern gives the atom its property of mass. Which is why they, Energy and Mass, are formulaic equivalents and also why the speed of energy appears in the equation.

By the way how exactly do you not see E = M when the equation is fundamentally Energy = Mass (X a constant)? That to me is borderline bizarre.

[DonnyTJS]

I like the Terence McKenna quote regarding Science & the big bang theory...

"Give us one free miracle and we will explain the rest".

Yes, that's neatly put.

[Orraloon]

By the way how exactly do you not see E = M when the equation is fundamentally Energy = Mass (X a constant)? That to me is borderline bizarre.

2 x pi = 6.28.

Does that mean 2 = 6.28?

[biffer]

2 x pi = 6.28.

Does that mean 2 = 6.28?

No, because pi is dimensionless I.e. Has no units. Where you've got units you have flexibility, so that example isn't a parallel.

[phart]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KxAWAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT43&lpg=PT43&dq=It+is+important+to+realize+that+in+physics+today,+we+have+no+knowledge+of+what+energy+is.+We+do+not+have+a+picture+that+energy+comes+in+little+blobs+of+a+definite+amount.+It+is+not+that+way.+However,+there+are+formulas+for+calculating+some+numerical+quantity&source=bl&ots=YDJ_nflDXf&sig=V5TOEDUmuRbyZLBZ4AmThDVP89A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5FSDVPT_Lor3Usfig9gP&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20important%20to%20realize%20that%20in%20physics%20today%2C%20we%20have%20no%20knowledge%20of%20what%20energy%20is.%20We%20do%20not%20have%20a%20picture%20that%20energy%20comes%20in%20little%20blobs%20of%20a%20definite%20amount.%20It%20is%20not%20that%20way.%20However%2C%20there%20are%20formulas%20for%20calculating%20some%20numerical%20quantity&f=false

Feynman lectures

It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity and when we add it together it gives “28″—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanisms or the reasons for the various formulas.

Edited December 6, 2014 by phart

[thplinth]

No, because pi is dimensionless I.e. Has no units. Where you've got units you have flexibility, so that example isn't a parallel.

...plus the small matter that E & M are variables in the equation while 2 & 6.28 are constants.

edit : haha!

Edited December 6, 2014 by thplinth

[biffer]

Aaaaah, physics puns.

We can close the TAMB now, it doesn't get any better than this

[Orraloon]

OK, we are obviously not going to make any progress on this one, so let's move on to something else. Does the TAMB believe in parallel universes?

[biffer]

Depends what you mean. Are you talking quantum multiverse?

[Orraloon]

Depends what you mean. Are you talking quantum multiverse?

Not very sure to be honest. I remember reading a book about it many, many moons ago and then this program came on TV a wee while back.

http://vimeo.com/58603054

It's presented by the lead singer of the Eels, who's dad first came up with the idea back in the 50s.

I use this theory to console myself when I miss a short putt at the golf. I think to myself that in all the other universes, the putt actually went in and I was just unlucky to be in the wrong universe at the wrong time.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Orraloon

[DonnyTJS]

Not very sure to be honest. I remember reading a book about it many, many moons ago and then this program came on TV a wee while back.

http://vimeo.com/58603054

It's presented by the lead singer of the Eels, who's dad first came up with the idea back in the 50s.

I use this theory to console myself when I miss a short putt at the golf. I think to myself that in all the other universes, the putt actually went in and I was just unlucky to be in the wrong universe at the wrong time.

'Eels' not 'The Eels'!

Yeah, he came up with quantum multiverse theory to get around the need for an observer.

[mariokempes56]

Depends what you mean. Are you talking quantum multiverse?

Poems ? Jeez whatever next.

[redstevie007]

Depends what you mean. Are you talking quantum multiverse?

[northernscum]

'Eels' not 'The Eels'!

You've not heard about the insolvency event then.....

[DonnyTJS]

You've not heard about the insolvency event then.....

Great band - saw 'em supporting Pulp a few years back. The missus says his autobiography is a good read - plenty about his relationship with his genius dad - but he's had a harrowing life.

[Orraloon]

'Eels' not 'The Eels'!

They are "the Eels" in at least a couple of universes that I know of.

[Freeedom]

Yeah you are correct i forgot that mass can also be measured in eV, it's convention in particle physics.