• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

E=MC2

L

Lightkeeper

Well-Known Member
I had a discussion with my cousin a few days ago. He kept saying that energy is matter. To me that is like saying water is ice. You have to do something to the water before it becomes ice. If energy was matter the formula would be E=M or there wouldn't be two names for the same thing.

I maintain that energy and matter are different forms of the same thing and that you have to do something to energy before it becomes matter. You can turn energy into matter and matter into energy. I figured the formula for matter into energy would be M=sqrt of E/C.

What do you think?
 
Engyo

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
I think you said what he said in a more exact manner. It's semantics; you were more precise, but neither of you is WRONG.
 
L

Lightkeeper

Well-Known Member
The problem was that he wouldn't let me talk about energy. I had heard that scientists were focusing more on energy than they had in the past and were focusing less on matter. This is where my cousin said I was wrong, that energy and matter were the same. If they are the same why are we calling them too different things and why can't we hold a conversation about energy?
 
Rex

Rex

Founder
Well you can't have energy without matter and you can't have matter without energy.

It's like saying which came first? The chicken or the egg.

But energy and matter are not the same thing in my eyes. I would say all matter is tangible and energy is not?

I gotta think about this more!
 
Engyo

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Sounds like your cousin likes to argue. Also like he has a strong attachment to being right (as if everyone else doesn't B^)
 
L

Lightkeeper

Well-Known Member
This same cousin made the statement that Quantum Mechanics is not about atoms. It was my understanding that QM is the study of radiation and matter at the atomic level.
 
Runt

Runt

Well-Known Member
I think matter is energy, but energy is NOT matter. Matter is energy in a certain "arrangement" if you will (waves forming subatomic particles forming atoms forming "matter" as some define it). Think of this as an analogy... humans are atoms (we are made up of atoms) but atoms are not human.
 
D

Death

Member
Matter is a configuration of energy, at least according to m-theory.

Oh and it's e=mc^2, not e=mc2, that would mean mass * lightspeed * 2, not squared.
 
A

anders

Well-Known Member
Energy and matter are equivalent in the way the Einstein equation shows. Sometimes electrons behave like little bullets, sometimes their behaviour can only be explained if we assume that they are some kind of waveforms. I think that we do not know enough to explain or describe their "true" nature. How we perceive "things" depends on what methods we use to perceive them. A theory I have had for some 40 years is that everything is just probabilities of force fields, but I cannot explain exactly what I mean by that.

Quantum mechanics deals not only with atoms, but with elementary particles. A very important principle in QM is that of uncertainty...
 
Mr Spinkles

Mr Spinkles

Mr
Of coures, the equation e = mc^2 is part of the theory of relativity- it might turn out not to be correct after all. Let's see what the boys at NASA come up with after these latest satellite experiments which are designed to test Einstein's theories. Go science!
 
A

anders

Well-Known Member
All experiments so far have shown that the energy-matter eqation works. The space experiments are designed to test the space-time theories, which should have nothing to do with the energy-matter equation.
 
Mr Spinkles

Mr Spinkles

Mr
Oh, ok--I thought e = mc^2 was derived from the parts of the theory of Relativity which they are now testing in space. Looks like I thought wrong lol.
 
Mr Spinkles

Mr Spinkles

Mr
Of coures, the equation e = mc^2 is part of the theory of relativity- it might turn out not to be correct after all. Let's see what the boys at NASA come up with after these latest satellite experiments which are designed to test Einstein's theories. Go science!
 
A

anders

Well-Known Member
All experiments so far have shown that the energy-matter eqation works. The space experiments are designed to test the space-time theories, which should have nothing to do with the energy-matter equation.
 
Mr Spinkles

Mr Spinkles

Mr
Oh, ok--I thought e = mc^2 was derived from the parts of the theory of Relativity which they are now testing in space. Looks like I thought wrong lol.
 
Q

(Q)

Active Member
Mr. Spinkles, you're right - E = mc^2 is a direct consequence of changes to the structure of spacetime brought about by Special Relativity.
 
A

anders

Well-Known Member
(Q),

Many thanks for correcting my error.

Mr. Spinkles,

Apologies for not trusting you. I should have checked more sources, considering that I have had no lectures in advanced physics since 1963. I am glad, though, that I didn’t outright say that you were wrong, but wrote “should have nothing to do with".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top