Look Out Einstein...Here I Come!
I have a theory:
I Postulate that 'truth' is simple, and that truth's opposite is complex.
IF the most obvious answer is usually the correct one,
THEN the most obscure answer is usually the incorrect one.
Based on that premise, the more confusing something is that your trying to theorize,
the more incorrect you are in your theorizing.
To understand something, you simplify it, which is the basis of scientific measure.
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, is probably true.
Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics:
1 The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity),
2 The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.
The resultant theory agrees with experiment better than classical mechanics, e.g. in the Michelson-Morley experiment that supports postulate 2, but also has many surprising consequences. Some of these are:
* Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for some observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.
* Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.
* Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer.
* Mass-energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.
The defining feature of special relativity is the replacement of the Galilean transformations of classical mechanics by the Lorentz transformations. (See Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism and introduction to special relativity).
Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.
Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the observer
Eliminate the impossible...
Time is a constant. It is a measurement. If you change the measurements you nullify what it is and make it into something it is not. Therefore 'time' cannot be altered or changed, to change it is to make it into something else. Which is the definition of the concept 'to change'.
If we stretch out a rubber tape measure making all the inches two inches long, we have not changed 'the inch' we have ruined our measuring system, which is why tape measures are not made of rubber.
Motion and the velocity of that motion cannot change or alter time, again, because time is a measurement, by definition, a constant. So, if when you get back from a light speed trip, you are young and everyone you knew before you left are old or dead it has to be because of something else. I for one believe that you will be the same as you were before the trip. You and your twin, that remained behind, will still be 'Identical Twins'. You'll both be the same age, just like before.
So if 'Special Relativity' isn't the altering of time...what is it?
The Obvious Answer...The Moving clocks are under the effect of 'G-Force'.
G-Force: A force acting on a body as a result of acceleration or gravity, informally described in units of acceleration equal to one g. For example, a 12 pound object undergoing a g-force of 2g experiences 24 pounds of force.
The compression effect that a body at rest undergoes when being effected by a body that is in motion and is causing the body at rest to accelerate/move. The effects of G-Force on the human body is a contraction or condensing of the body.
The clocks 'tick' less fast because of the increased resistance, the added friction the g-force creates. The objects are shorter because of this condensing effect of G-Force. Not Time dilation.
While driving very fast in a car the telephone poles on the side of the road seem to become a wall. It isn't because the poles have moved closer together, it isn't because the poles have become stretched out and are a hundred times wider than they started out as. It is because our brains aren't processing the information fast enough, which causes the information to be incorrect, distorted.
The time it takes for our brain to process the information we are seeing is a set value. The more rapidly things change, the less time our brain can devote to a clear and accurate view. The faster sights alter, the less specific our vision gets, because our brain doesn't have enough time to finish processing one sight, before it must start processing the next.
We see a pole and before our brain can process what we have seen it has already gone past and we are seeing something else. The similarities in the different poles become a constant in our brains processor and we see a wall of poles. No time dilation, no supernatural intervention.
Perhaps our view of 'light' is a result of our brain's inability to see clearly the substance of light. We see a wall of light (a beam) as a result of the velocity that the light substance is under. In effect we see the light substance in much the same way we see the wall of telephone poles.
One stationary observer and one in motion are unable to see any noticable difference in light do to the incredible speed that the light substance is under. We see the wall of light and any view of it is the same blurred view because, in order to see it in any clear way, we would have to increase the speed of the moving observer to a speed beyond our current ability. Or we would have to speed up the brain's ability to process information to a level as yet unattainable to us.
E = mc2
Mass-energy equivalence: E = mc2, energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable.
If Energy and Mass are 'equivalent' then they are the same thing...
transmutation is the 'changing of something into something else...
So-E=mc2... yes or no. Either they are the same or they are not the same.
The Definitions ...
1. a body of coherent matter, usually of indefinite shape and often of considerable size: a mass of dough. 2. a collection of incoherent particles, parts, or objects regarded as forming one body: a mass of sand. 3. aggregate; whole (usually prec. by in the): People, in the mass, mean well. 4. a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity: a mass of errors; a mass of troops. 5. bulk, size, expanse, or massiveness: towers of great mass and strength. 6. Fine Arts. a. Painting. an expanse of color or tone that defines form or shape in general outline rather than in detail.b. a shape or three-dimensional volume that has or gives the illusion of having weight, density, and bulk.7. the main body, bulk, or greater part of anything: the great mass of American films. 8. Physics. the quantity of matter as determined from its weight or from Newton's second law of motion. Abbreviation: m Compare weight (def. 2), relativistic mass, rest mass. 9. Pharmacology. a preparation of thick, pasty consistency, from which pills are made.10. the masses, the ordinary or common people as a whole; the working classes or the lower social classes. –adjective 11. pertaining to, involving, or affecting a large number of people: mass unemployment; mass migrations; mass murder. 12. participated in or performed by a large number of people, esp. together in a group: mass demonstrations; mass suicide. 13. pertaining to, involving, or characteristic of the mass of the people: the mass mind; a movie designed to appeal to a mass audience. 14. reaching or designed to reach a large number of people: television, newspapers, and other means of mass communication. 15. done on a large scale or in large quantities: mass destruction. –verb (used without object) 16. to come together in or form a mass or masses: The clouds are massing in the west. –verb (used with object) 17. to gather into or dispose in a mass or masses; assemble: The houses are massed in blocks. Origin:
1350–1400; ME masse < L massa mass < Gk mâza barley cake, akin to mássein to knead
2. assemblage, heap, congeries. 4. collection, accumulation, pile, conglomeration. 5. magnitude, dimension. 7. majority. 10. proletariat, plebeians. 17. collect, marshal, amass, aggregate.
Energy: -noun, plural -gies.
1. the capacity for vigorous activity; available power: I eat chocolate to get quick energy. 2. an adequate or abundant amount of such power: I seem to have no energy these days. 3. Often, energies. a feeling of tension caused or seeming to be caused by an excess of such power: to work off one's energies at tennis. 4. an exertion of such power: She plays tennis with great energy. 5. the habit of vigorous activity; vigor as a characteristic: Foreigners both admire and laugh at American energy. 6. the ability to act, lead others, effect, etc., forcefully.7. forcefulness of expression: a writing style abounding with energy. 8. Physics. the capacity to do work; the property of a system that diminishes when the system does work on any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done; potential energy. Symbol: E9. any source of usable power, as fossil fuel, electricity, or solar radiation.
1. vigor, force, potency. 5. zeal, push. _________________________________________________________________
Based on the definitions I conclude they are different, even if they are similar. So they are not equivalent but they may be transmutable.
I believe what they mean by equivalent and transmutable is they are like a wolf and a dog, same species different animal, interbreed-able.
Or that one can be made into the other and back again...perhaps the beaming technology of Star Trek was inspired here?
So can we transmute matter into energy and back again? Does E=MC2? The back again part might prove difficult, and may be the reason why we haven't seen any 'beaming' platforms at the airport or train station... yet.
E stands for Energy (in joules)
M stands for mass
C2 stands for the speed of light X2 (300,000,000 meters per second) or 90,000,000,000,000,000
this equation gives us the amount of energy released if the mass is converted to energy. (yes they have done this part of the transmutation i.e. the Nuclear Bomb.) In reverse it tells us the amount of energy needed to create matter from energy (M=E/C2).
The transmutation of Mass to energy, the making of energy from matter, requires the combining of matter and anti-matter. To accomplish this you go to the corner store and buy a gallon of water and a gallon of anti-water, mix thoroughly and pour it into your tank...and wallah instant energy...
Well, maybe they haven't gotten quite that far yet, but they'll get there. For now to find anti-matter you have to find radioactive metals such as uranium. Heavier Elements (called such because they have more protons in their make-up) than Iron are unstable, which means they are decaying, they are in effect radio-active. Radioactivity is the decay of the matter or the joining of the anti-matter and the matter.
In Uranium, for example, every second, many of the atoms in a chunk of uranium are falling apart. When this happens, the pieces, which are now new elements (with fewer protons) are LESS massive in total than the original uranium atoms. The extra mass disappears as energy... again according to the formula e=mc2 This process is called nuclear fission.
The second part of the transmutation is the formation of matter from energy. A phenomenon peculiar to small elementary particles like protons is that they combine. A single proton forms the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. Two protons are found in the nucleus of a helium atom. This is how the elements are formed... all the way up to the heaviest naturally occurring substance, uranium, which has 92 protons in its nucleus.
Humanity being able to decide how many protons to mix together and the ability to control that mixing would be the first step in being able to 'beam' someone back from energy in some other place. However the combining of protons gives off energy (two protons that are single free standing have a greater mass than two protons that are joined, the difference in the two when combined is let off in the form of energy, which is an example of Fusion.). So reassembling the matter would be producing energy at the same time... The combining of protons will only give us naturally occurring elements, which in turn would have to be mixed in a controlled system in order to give us the exact make-up of what ever was being beamed and reassembled.
Needless to say this very complex topic seems to be true to me, and quite humbling.
Way to go Albert!
The flip side to matter is anti-matter. Normal Hydrogen is an electron and a proton. The electron is negatively charged and the proton is positively charged.
The anti-matter equivalent to hydrogen is a positively charged electron or positron and negatively charged proton (anti-proton). Since the anti matter side of physics acts in the same way as the normal matter side anti protons and positrons join making the same natural elements that exist in normal matter, i.e. Hydrogen and water and all the naturally occurring elements, they are simply made with a reverse polarity.
Personally I believe the cycles of our matter reality are from a big bang to the next big bang, each cycle can be massively different or slightly different. In this cycle what we call normal matter came out on top, in the next it may be anti-matter that wins out.