• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    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!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

E=MC2 Introduced

Nitro

Admin/Immoral Turpitude
Staff member
Admin
V.I.P Member
September 27, 1905
The year 1905 was a big one for a young physicist named Albert Einstein. On September 27, 1905, Einstein published a paper positing that energy and mass were actually the same thing in different states, a principle he explained with the equation E=MC2. This simple mathematical expression completely upended physics, becoming the most well-known equation in human history. Simply put, E=MC2 states that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. The equation formed the bedrock of the nuclear age, explained the inner workings of stars, and supported the biggest theory of them all: the Big Bang.

The famous equation came at the end of a year of discovery later known as Einstein’s “annus mirabilis,” or “miraculous year.” In March of 1905, the 26-year-old physicist published a paper theorizing that light was a particle. A second paper, that May, proved the physical existence of atoms, and a third paper a month later introduced a mind-bending idea known as special relativity. Some 20 years later, Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity turned him into a worldwide celebrity. But E=MC2 changed the perception of our existence, and proved that our universe was still full of mysteries.
 
He published 4 papers in that year. Amazing all worthy of a prize of some sort, pretty sure he was one of us, amazing what you can do when you can visualize the way he could. He could not get a job, married a classmate only girl in his class.
They still can not come close to falsifying his theory, trying for over a hundred years, even recent experiments strengthen it. Not bad for a guy with a 160 IQ Newton, probably closer to 190. neither of which can be verified.
 
Last edited:
Of course, the upshot of the equivalence is that reactions, either fusion or fission, yields daughter products with a mass defect due to binding energy. Release that energy over 20 or more exponential generations and we know how that goes.
 
Of course, the upshot of the equivalence is that reactions, either fusion or fission, yields daughter products with a mass defect due to binding energy. Release that energy over 20 or more exponential generations and we know how that goes.

It's something bad isn't it?
 
It's something bad isn't it?
Well, I think controlled nuclear reactions can be a way forward to decarbonization, which we must do to avoid civilization killing temperatures, but applying the curve of binding energy yields some horrible nuclear weapons. The mass deficit that drives nuclear weapons, turned to energy by the square of an astounding quantity, releases such energy that they are far different than mere explosives.
 
Well, I think controlled nuclear reactions can be a way forward to decarbonization, which we must do to avoid civilization killing temperatures, but applying the curve of binding energy yields some horrible nuclear weapons. The mass deficit that drives nuclear weapons, turned to energy by the square of an astounding quantity, releases such energy that they are far different than mere explosives.
That may well be why we haven't had a full-blown World War III. Only war by proxy. No political leader wants to die and there'd be no surviving it. Every political leader knew that if the Cold War went hot, there would no longer be anything left for them to lead.

Without them, it is easy to see Soviet tanks rolling across Europe and Japan, and with Chinese allies, taking most of Asia. Or at least trying to and the US would have no choice but to oppose them and a conventional war would shape up that made WWII seem small. Just Like it had made WWI seem small.
 
I don't have a lot hope for fusion energy. Anyhoo, we have that big fusion reactor in the sky. All you have to do is convert it's energy to electric power. Hmm, I think we have that problem solved already. Just turn the damn lights off and stop wasting energy :laughing:.
 
For some odd reason, several of you have turned what should have been a celebration of the anniversary of an important part of nuclear physics into a political discussion involving warfare and then climate change.
Let's try to steer it back towards that, ok?
 
ein.jpg
:)
 
in my opinion Albert is the greatest scientist that ever lived.
I think there have been many great scientists. As great is Darwin. While Wallace came to the same general conclusion, Darwin produced a model of evolution that was far more radical, especially in avoiding just-so stories. He recognized that there were emergent properties that just came along for the ride as well as the power of recruitment.
 
Here are two things about Einstein that amaze me:

1) He usually didn't do physics experiments. He preferred "thought experiments", where he reasoned out the cause and effect of things. His greatest discoveries were the result of just thinking about the universe and saying, "This is how it's got to be."

2) We detected gravity waves in September 2015, almost exactly 100 years after Einstein predicted them in November 2015. He made a prediction and it took 100 years of technological advancements and experiments to see that, "yup, Einstein is still right."
 
WE are showing our bias's. Physics is the root of all the sciences.
Not all, but they intersect in amazing ways. Very early Molecular Genetics was jump started by a handful of physicists asking questions about DNA; like: How can we use radioactive decay and probability to measure the length of viral DNA? Gunther Stent published Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology. In the Biological Sciences the basic tools were provided by the taxonomy from Linnaeus, and the Comparative Anatomy of Cuvier. They began a revolution in Natural Philosophy.
 
Even with modest proton energies of 70 meV in a cyclotron, relativity needed to be compensated for. Beam extraction is problematic at that energy, as very large electrostatic fields are needed to extract protons from the machine. I saw the negative ion machines come into commercial application. That is where you accelerate a negative hydrogen ion, then run the beam into a grounded graphite foil. The electrons are stripped from hydrogen and the proton exits straight without the expenditure of additional energy.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom