Einstein wrong

[timo]

The correct equation is E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²

[CPL.Luke]

thats the same as saying E=mc^2 +pc

[SubJunk]

i gave a source regarding neutrinos speed earlier

 

What, just one source? This is the internet buddy. I can't find the source you posted (mainly cause i didn't look ) but surely you can't just believe one source.

 

Oh and Atheist get off it. Either you're a smart-ass or jumped the gun very early on your reply.

[timo]

that [E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²'] is the same as saying E=mc^2 +pc

 

a) no.

b) Also not the same as the E = mc² + (pc)² that you were complaining about.

c) Now I remember why I usually ignore certain threads so don´t expect me to participate here further.

[Ophiolite]

here you go http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x18.htm

Thanks ed, though it didn't quite address my questions over mass and the missing neutrinos. This one does that nicely so I am now a happy bunny.

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nuosc_story.html#A%20Decade%20Old%20Problem

 

Edit; just looked back through the post and I see Subjunk was asking for references. This one looks solid to me. But then I'm an Earth scientist and easily confused.

[ed84c]

should it not be E=Mc^2*g? or is that another way of describing p^2*c*^c

 

Also im not basing it on one source, Im basing it on 2 there and a horizon episode i watched. Im not saying im definately correct

[swansont]

The correct equation is E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²

 

Egads, yes. A brainfart on my part.

[swansont]

thats the same as saying E=mc^2 +pc

 

No, if you square it you get a cross-term.

 

I erred in my post. Serves me right, trying to watch the game and post at the same time.

[Severian]

Egads, yes. A brainfart on my part.

 

Lol! and I just pasted your equation! (that'll teach me to trust you!)

[CPL.Luke]

just to say that I see how photons could have no mass

 

if

e^2=(mc^2)+(pc)^2

 

and a photon has momentum.

 

and then by that it had mass than it would have no momentum because otherwise you would have e=2e essentially

[ndmc]

I just finished talking with a man named Joao Magueijo after reading his book "Faster than the speed of light" which HE proves that einstein is wrong' date=' anyone else read the book? any thoughts on this?

 

What do you think of VSL theory?[/quote']

 

hi dluther

im currently reading that book. and i find it quite fascinating.

someone mentioned above that light is slower when its crossing a medium; well, that´s true but it´s bullshit though. cuz magueji is talking about lightspeed in vacuum, not in a medium.

someone else said that magueiji is only looking for attention. i guess he didnt understand anything. of course scientists are looking for attention; but that´s not the motor of the development of vsl.

moffat had a vsl-theory years ago. barrows wrote about vsl before maguejio published his results. even einstein thought about vsl.

in my opinion, vsl does not prove that einstein was wrong. i mean, when einstein published his theories of relativity, he did not prove that newton was wrong. he just added something that was new until then. i think it´s the same with vsl: it´s adding something new.

if that means that einstein was wrong, well, then newton was wrong, too. but honestly, would anybuddy say that newton was wrong?

imho you can say that they all were/are right with the knowledge they could achieve at their times.

 

man, did you really talk to magueijro? he´s a genius to me! i actually love his book and his way of writing. it´s an adventure, it´s highly interesting and it´s funny too.

 

my first post here. sorry if it´s too long

[geistkiesel]

E = mc2 is and always has been true.

 

 

No. This is not true. It has never been true' date=' and it never will be true. No body is completely at rest.[/quote']

Sure. Maybe what you see when you look at night. Try this. Two photons are emitted tat he the same time. One goes this way the other goes that way. Now photons move instraight lines and do not drift. If there is a straight line in space that does not drift, then , by definition you have a zero velocity coordinate system.

 

 

Maybe

nobody

is at rest, but abstraction are at rest, and they don't interfer with any motion, they don't push you off the road and they don't give you bad graxdes. The point where the photons are emitted is a zero veloicty point., absoltely

 

Geistkiesel

[JohnB]

Please excuse my ignorance, but I thought the Einstein equations merely stated that nothing could travel at lightspeed. They say nothing about going faster.

 

Would it not be theoretically possible (if velocity increases in quantum jumps rather than a linear progression ) to go from slightly below LS to slightly above without actually travelling at c?

[swansont]

Please excuse my ignorance' date=' but I thought the Einstein equations merely stated that nothing could travel [b']at[/b] lightspeed. They say nothing about going faster.

 

Would it not be theoretically possible (if velocity increases in quantum jumps rather than a linear progression ) to go from slightly below LS to slightly above without actually travelling at c?

 

If you look at the equations, you will find that for v>c you get an imaginary term. So either the mass is imaginary (to get real energy) or if the mass is real, you have an imaginary energy. So jumping across that divide requires something to change character somehow, and there's no known physical attributes that can be discerned from all that.

 

It is entirely possible that superluminal particles exist (tachyons) but as we have no way of interacting with them, it makes no tangible difference if they do or don't.

[JohnB]

Thanks mate, I thought it was something like that.

[BlackHole]

Special relativity makes two assumptions:

 

1) The speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source or receiver. That is, the speed of light is the same in all reference frames in uniform motion, with respect to the source.

 

2) Space is isotropic and uniform. The fundamental laws of physics are identical for any two observers in uniform relative motion.

 

Special Relativity rejects the idea of any absolute ('unique' or 'special') frame of reference; rather physics must look the same to all observers travelling at a constant velocity (inertial frame). These two assumptions were confirmed by hundreds of experiments (i.e muon decay).

 

PS: If there is a violation, then either postulate (1) or (2) are incorrect for some reason.

[Kylonicus]

Hate to play Devil's advocate,

 

but, what about Quantum/Superluminal tunneling?

 

I agree that Einstein's General Relativity generally explains big things, but Quantum Mechanics is something completely different.

 

Due to the uncertanity principle, a particle has a very small probability of teleporting halfway across the universe, or into another dimension(brane), back in time, or faster than light.

 

Superluminal experiments have been done, and have been repeated.

 

So lets just agree that for the big things, Einstein was right, and for the little things Quantum Mechanics is right.

[insane_alien]

Einstein wasn't and isn't wrong, just inaccurate but one hell of a lot more accurate than newton. Unless this guys theory explains why einstein was right when his theory works and then why his equations broke down in certain circumstances and then provide replacement equations to make up for the old deficiences then i'm inclined to stick to einstein. I have not read the book yet as i am currently buired in the "Dark Tower" series by stephen king and will get round to it eventually.

[swansont]

Superluminal experiments have been done' date=' and have been repeated.

[/quote']

 

 

Not that transferred information in any meaningfull way.

[ydoaPs]

Due to the uncertanity principle, a particle has a very small probability of teleporting halfway across the universe, or into another dimension(brane), back in time, or faster than light.

iirc, matter, and all exchange particles, excluding the graviton, are open strings and are therefore stuck to our brane.

[CPL.Luke]

isn''t the proper equation for energy in special relativity

 

E= mc^2 (1/squrt(1-v^2/c^2)

 

[math]E=mc^2 over sqrt{1-v^2 over c^2} [/math]

[swansont]

yes it is. m is the rest mass in that equation.

[CPL.Luke]

yeah, I'm abit lazy to test it out but is [math]e^2=mc^2 + p^2c^2[/math] equivalent to that?

[swansont]

yeah, I'm abit lazy to test it out but is [math]e^2=mc^2 + p^2c^2[/math'] equivalent to that?

 

 

No, but [math]E^2=m^2c^4 + p^2c^2[/math] is. Three or four algebraic steps should confirm it, using [math]p = \gamma mv[/math]