What does this means? Dont get it

What does this means? Dont get it

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=M_553vKJd5c
youtu.be/Xo232kyTsO0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Evil = MacaroniCheese2

Energy is equal to mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.

Why don't you just eliminate the c^2 constant and use a different unit of measurement for energy?
Then you could just write E = m.

Does that mean sq(E/m) = C meaning you can alter the speed of light by changing the energy or mass input?

But E != m retard

this

It does in natural units

Because fuck you, that's why. Einstein's gonna ass-blast you in your sleep with his rotten skeleton coc for that shitty comment.

No, c is assumed to be constant

The unit would be wrong, kilograms can't equal joules. With this equation it's all right, since J=kg*m^2/s^2

*proportional to the size of the universe

why does it require c^2 to equate mass with energy when it is physically impossible for the speed of light to ever reach a speed of c^2? does this make sense to people?

c is a big number. c^2 is even bigger. The equation shows the rate of exchange between energy and mass ("1 Energy = c^2 Mass" kinda like "1 $ = 111 ¥"). That's the big realization this offers: You can change energy to mass and vice versa.

Even if that were true, you have no constant way to quantify the energy transferred.

Just look up natural units and stop bitching

If there was infinite mass (i.e. singularity) could be resulting energy be of an infinite amount too?

We've got a newfag here

Yea, it's really cool how you can smash two protons together creating ...say a z-boson that's 97 times heavier than either proton to begin with, just by introducing energy.

If anything in the world could be actually infinite, then you can throw out everything that you know about physics.

Let me try to get this from the other way round. Light by itself doesn't have mass. But once light hits a surface to be absorbed or reflected it exchanges an impulse of movement.

Lets assume you have an absolutely reflective box with no mass itself. At the soment you push it in any direction more like will hit the side you are pushing it on, and less light will hit it on the side you are pushing it to, therefore creating a resistance to being acelerated in one direction. — Just the definition of mass.

It appears that this is the general way that mass is created. and he amount of energy bound in this mass divided by the mass itself is exactly the velocity of light squared.

That’s what it means.

c^2 isn't a speed: Kinda like meter times meter isn't meters but instead square meters. c times c (or c^2) is meters per seconds squared or (m/s)^2 = m^2 /s^2 which multiplied by mass unit kg gives us m^2 * kg / m^2 or joule (J) which is an unit of energy.

youtube.com/watch?v=M_553vKJd5c

So if meters time meters is square meters, then speed times speed is square speed. Like going towards two orthogonal directions at the same time. Woah, deep.

By the way, do you guys know this equation is actually incomplete? It only works for objects that are not moving, have v=0. For anything that moves the equation goes :
e^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2
with p being momentum.

Because it has to do with the speed of the object. As a item approaches C (The constant of the universe) The energy approaches infinite.

Because this formula is false.
Energy is do not matter it's the variation.
The real formula would be dE=dm * c2

how did you go from
>(m/s)^2 = s^2
to
>((m^2*kg)/m^2)?
especially where seconds (s) went?

Fuck i failed rip my english

Well fuck me that's a typo. J = kg * m^2 / s^2. Well caught my friend

Don't worry mate, most native English speakers can't speak anything but English. You're way beyond them.

In any initial inertial frame of reference the speed of light is the same. Therefore you can always assume a frame of reference in which the object is not moving and leave out said momentum.

you use it to calculate how much energy is in mass

if you split atoms (of fuse them together), there's usually an energy/mass imbalance because you end up with less mass. the imbalance is released as energy, thats why a nuclear bomb releases a fuckton of energy. You can calculate "exactly" how much because Einstein wrote E = mc^2

It is the energy that an amount of mass has.

>*proportional to the number of dicks OP has sucked today.

FTFY

This is the energy for a massive object that is stationary in the given reference frame. It does not apply to moving particles nor to light and other massless particles. I honestly really hate that this is so iconic but never the actual formula which is:
E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2
where p is the momentum of the mass.

You can't just eliminate it but most fundamental masses (proton, electron, atomic masses etc) are expressed in J*s^2/kg or E_0/c^2 for convenience, this is called the rest mass, or E_0 the rest energy since it doesn't take into account kinetic energy from momentum.

The formula is an expression of the total energy of a piece of matter. It's profound because it links matter and energy together meaning for any given amount of mass m, the energy that would be released if it was turned into pure energy would be m*c^2 since energy (in this case) would be equivalent to light and by necessity have speed c. This isn't a technically correct interpretation but close enough, it's basically the kinetic energy of a mass moving at speed c (give or take a factor of 1/2). Moving particles have their own momentum and therefore kinetic energy so it modifies the equation to the above one to account for added energy

>It appears that this is the general way that mass is created
No, just no. Light being absorbed imparts some energy which can go to moving particles (heat, kinetic movement, dipole reactions etc.) but that is NOT the creation of mass. Pure energy can turn into particles of mass m = E/2c^2 so long as there is sufficient energy in the photons and the conservation laws are upheld (charge, lepton number, quark flavor)

No, dimensional analysis works when things are self consistent but that doesn't mean constants are arbitrarily used in formulas. c is still the speed of light in a vacuum and it is there because of the way reference frames are converted in space-time diagrams.

That formula hurts.

Mostly, but this is referred to as rest energy or rest mass, which is boring and usually not useful. Calculating the energy of a near light speed rocket for example will have an easy to solve rest energy but we on Earth would need to know the energy in our reference frame, requiring the use of the rocket's (changing) momentum.

This is nifty but all the energy released from fission is from binding energy of nuclei, not from atoms turning into pure energy. We use the formula to subtract the rest energy of the daughter isotopes from the rest energy of the parent isotope to find the binding energy left over. It's miniscule. The large energy happenes because of a chain reaction where a neutron is shot into an unstable atom which breaks apart and releases 2 neutrons, which break apart 2 more atoms which together release 4 then 8 then 16, 32, 64, 128, etc. Sot the energy released is 2^x*E_binding where E_binding = E_parent - E_daughter1 - E_daughter2 - 2m_electron*c^2

Fission is another beast entirely. It's when gravity is stronger than the electric repulsing of the positive nuclei of atoms. They get so close that the strong nuclear force takes over and binds the nucleon (protons & neutrons) together into larger nuclei. The energy released is also from binding energy because the binding energy of the larger atoms/isotopes is less than the binding energy of the smaller atoms/isotopes, at a certain point. Unfortunately it takes a fuck ton of energy to start this so we can't get energy from it yet, and it produces radioactive isotopes that are nuclear waste, they bind to most things like any material a fusion reactor would be made of, making it inoperable.

Also T. astrophysicist here if anyone wants to ask any questions for a little bit.

If black holes are invisible, why don't we make fighter jets out of them for camouflage?

They merely bend space around them because of their huge gravity that light passes around them. The military would need to have something so massive as to do this but last I checked there's no way to have something as massive as your mother on an aircraft without it crashing and burning.

help me with differential equations please

>T. astrophysicist

no one cares if youre a trans scientist. watching rick and morty does not make you an authority, you egotistical retard

Kek, no but I think doing calibrations from data analysis for a satellite does.

They're just linear odes mane, just assume a solution of form y(t) = e^(r1*t)+...e^(rn*t) where r1, ... rn are the roots of the characteristic equations (r^2 + 2/3*r + r - c = 0 for the first one) Then just plug and chug.
[Apparently I'm getting rusty]

woops I botched that up, the +r should be +1 and ignore -c, te c adds an extra step at the end, not here.

what do you calibrate exactly? it takes literally no skill to run a code on some numbers and interpret graphs, so, youre gonna have to be more specific

>characteristic equations
what is a characteristic equation? how did you derive that?

>rn are the roots of the characteristic equations

why the roots?

Things in nature square naturally. Can't get rid of it. It's how the universe is built.

Can't be too specific cause job hush hush crap. What I can say is that currently I've been working on (along with a fuck ton of other people) calibrating an optical sensor pointed at Earth using data from ground HF detectors. Specifically measuring the detection efficiency and false alarm rates from the satellite trying to detect a thing that happens. The data I'm using from the satellite is midway through the processing pipeline and the stuff I and other researchers are doing is making changes in the whole pipeline in what to fix and what's more useful data to keep in as opposed to cut out. After this it will be processed a last time and funneling into AWIPS for them weather people that don't know shit about the science behind it all. It's more atmospheric physics right now but hey it pays.

It's a little cheaty but the derivative of e^rt = r*e^rt, and the second derivative is r^2*e^rt so we know this can fit the 'type' of solution for this ODE. Then the only way r^n*e^rt+r^n-1*e^rt + ...r*e^rt = 0 is if e^rt(r^n+...r^2 + r) = 0 and e^rt can't be 0 so the polynomial (r^n+...r^2+r) = 0 so you find the roots. This is the characteristic equation btw. I'm simplifying by not listing the coefficients in front of some of the r^blah like the 2/3 but it should give you a start.

It's a song by Big Audio Dynamite you bunch of knumbskulls!

Oh and if the roots are imaginary the solution has form e^irt which from the great Euler we know can be expressed as cosines and sines. And the = c part means you add another function to the solution that's just a polynomial:
y = k*e^rt gives you the solution if the ODE = 0
so if ODE = c then ODE + (f''(t) + f'(t) + f(t) = 0 + c
The second ODE is simple, what function when derived n times is a polynomial? a polynomial like x^n. This is overkill though since if f(t) = c then f''+f'+f = 0 + 0 + c so you just add it to the solution y = e^rt + c.

You solve the homogeneous ODE equal to 0, then you solve the simpler one = some function or constant and just add the solutions together.

unfortunately einstein was wrong about his equation because he never consulted the jews about it

what is 2+2-1
im noot good at quick maths

Oh shit, this is above my understanding, it might be 9, don't quote be though.

the faster you get to the speed of light, the slower time is from your perception

>>It appears that this is the general way that mass is created
>No, just no. Light being absorbed imparts some energy which can go to moving particles (heat, kinetic movement, dipole reactions etc.) but that is NOT the creation of mass. Pure energy can turn into particles of mass m = E/2c^2 so long as there is sufficient energy in the photons and the conservation laws are upheld (charge, lepton number, quark flavor)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but winding up a mechanical clock charges it with energy and increases its mass, even though only by a tiny amount. — And this mass is not the result of any new partical bound to this clock by winding it up.

>What does this mean?

It's easy. Einstein had t-w-o motorcycles, hence E = mc2.

Ritual ideas relativity
Only buildings no people prophecy
Time slide place to hide nudge reality
Foresight minds wide magic imagery

But it's a power, not a multiplication.

how do you square light? it radiates like a ball mang.

No, it increases the potential energy of the clock but it doesn't change the mass. E=mc^2 is saying energy Can be turned into matter and matter Can be turned into energy but not that it is the go to scenario. In order to have energy turn into matter (mass) particles and their corresponding antiparticles would need to be made to conserve charge and baryon or lepton numbers. This isn't stable and they would annihilate almost immediately releasing an equivalent amount of energy. If there was a huge amount of energy in a small location then it would momentarily at least form into particles but this is huge amounts of energy (this is what particle colliders like the LHC do which uses alot of energy to smash protons together to break apart into quarks releasing tons of energy from acceleration and I think a little nuclear binding energy as well )

...

Evolution=Minecraft 2

E=MC * E=MC

Probably has something to do with Eminem.

youtu.be/Xo232kyTsO0

>it's a power

Yeah, they were powerful motorcycles.

...

it's actually E=(mc*mc)

When we figure it out he'll release the 'My Salsa' single.

Fucking cucks, watch Ricky and Morty and you'll understand

It's actually E = m*c*c

God dammit this pisses me off, dumbfucks spreading misinformation. The total energy is E= sqrt(m^2c^4+p^2c^2) yet this chuckle fuck is saying E= sqrt(m^2c^4+p^2c^2) = mc^2
Again E=mc^2 is for STATIONARY matter. If you equate it to the kinetic contributions as well then of course you'll incorrectly increase the rest mass (because it's then not at rest). If you heat up a piece of metal it's molecules are moving, increasing the energy, not its mass. The problem is people are trying to make the abstract notion of energy fit nicely into one thing only - mass. It's not that simple, potential energy is from the forced ordering of states reducing entropy, it's grouped into the momentum term not the mass, hell even friction is complex on the minute level where electrostatic forces attract surfaces and vibrate emanating heat but it's alot easier to just say friction is just a form of heat energy.

God is real.

This way of viewing it may be helpful for all kinds of engineering purposes, but not for understanding the formula. — Why would the stationary mass of a proton and an electron added together be more than the mass of an hydrogen atom, more specifically one without neutrons. — Because the bound state frees energy and therefore the whole thing loses mass.
Yet, when you refer to stationary mass, you refer to the mass of the atom, and not to the mass of its components, which could exist stationary themselves.

A much better way of interpreting the bloody formula is "if a massive particle of total energy E turned into light, that light would have energy E, if a photon turned into a massive particle that particle would have some velocity and mass such that its total energy equals E"
This is all because shitsticks from public access channels and primary schools just use E = mc^2 instead of E^2 = m^2c^4+p^2c^2

huh? I'm pretty sure I learned that fusion energy works because the released neutrons convert to energy as radiation

for example h2O isotopes fuse to helium atoms and one neutron isnt needed so it converts to energy following e=mc^2, is this just wrecklessly simplified or completely wrong?

But you only need to take the (pc)^2 part into consideration if you want to refer to its energy from any inertial frame of reference. If you chose an inertial frame of reference in which the object stands still the impulse is still, and since E^2=(m^2)(c^4)+(p^2)(c^2) with p=0, therefore E^2=(m^2)(c^4)+(0^2)(c^2)=(m^2)(c^4) and E=mc^2

Oh, and by the way. Light does have a momentum, but no mass. The mass only appears if you capture the light in something else. This binding of the energy creates mass.

You can do that, it's just only true if you're stationary

Oh for fucks sake, use the natural units
E2=m2+p2

>engineering purposes
You wound me

The difference is that for the cases of a proton and electron having less mass than hydrogen there is a binding energy (well sort of) which is included in the atom without motion added. (honestly this is a terrible example because it opens up the can of worms that is quantum, the Bohr model breaks immediately and we can't talk in terms of electrostatic forces, velocity or even position). This gets very complicated very quick, the electron isn't orbiting but is in a superposition of states about the proton constrained by its wavefunction which has discretized energy that is expressed by the pseudo-binding energy. It's this discretized energy state that causes the mass discrepancy when it's not in an atom because it changes the electron wavefunction when not in an atom. (I really hate this example, quantum and relativity don't mix well and electrons are the devil).

Basically the gist of what I'm saying is that binding energy such as between nucleons doesn't affect momentum and so is accounted for by the mass term but if you then have momentum or a change in momentum the simple equation E=mc^2 breaks entirely and you need the full formula. The problem is interpreting what parts of the formula is being applied when trying to understand what types of energy are at work and that video throws it all out the window and says 'just use E=mc^2 it's always that'

Would it help to simplify the example, if you take a helium atom, with two electrons, of which one has mass by itself, while the other one does not, instead of one that is changing between having a stationary mass or not due to the Higgs field. — Also here the mass of the parts is more than the mass of the whole.

Had to double check but the neutron doesn't turn into pure energy, the binding energy is less after fusion so energy is released along with the neutron. The neutrons are what causes radioactive waste by binding into the atoms of whatever is outside the range of the fusion process, ruining the fusion apparatus. I fucked up and said isotopes did that, muh bad.

>watching rick and morty does not make you an authority
Of course it does you fucking simpleton