posted
E=mc^2: Does Einstein Owe Cab Drivers a Refund?
Two Australian theoretical physicists, Paul Davies and Charles Lineweaver, have proposed that the Speed of Light may not be constant as taught by Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. This threatens to overturn many of the laws of the universe. This is not trivial stuff. Even Newton must be quaking.
From a study of quasar lights, Davies and Lineweaver have concluded that the structure of atoms emitting quasar lights was slightly but significantly different from the structure of atoms in humans. They attribute the discrepancy to either a breach of the law of conservation of charge, or a breach of the constancy of the speed of light. To eliminate the violation of the first law, they resorted to a study of black holes. As usual, there is more to this than meets the eye.
Now, we all grew up on E=MC^2, time dilation, etc.
Many people flunked out of physics classes and became cab drivers because E=MC^2 did not make sense to them. Are the cab drivers right after all? If so, where do they go to get a refund?
Posts: 253 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
Please, it's not only the cab drivers oh!. Just like math, that mc squared stuff threw a curve ball in many plans by people that wanted to study engineering and the sciences. Many of us decided to go to business school or study political science. But, I think this may be a case of the British trying to outdo the Germans. Remember, Einstein was "German," and these Aussies are Brits, sort of. I want my own refund too.
Posts: 145 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
Thank you for the info on science research. Though I think that this would have few audience here, I still would go ahead to contribute.
From my little knowledge of Physics, E=mc^2 is an expresion of 'Matter-Energy inter-convertibility'. That is an expression of energy that can be release from atomic masses, like was demonstrated by the American Physicist in the "first man-made sustained nuclear fire".
Yes, it is correct that the speed/velocity of light: c is essential for the equation, however a failure of constancy of the velocity of light (like these Australians are claiming) logical would not mean an invalidation of E=mc^2; instead it would only alter the value of E. This alteration, in any case, may not be substantial.
However a variation in c may have effects on the theory of relativity and time.
quote: E=mc^2 is an expresion of 'Matter-Energy inter-convertibility'. That is an expression of energy that can be release from atomic masses, like was demonstrated by the American Physicist in the "first man-made sustained nuclear fire".
Yes, it is correct that the speed/velocity of light: c is essential for the equation, however a failure of constancy of the velocity of light (like these Australians are claiming) logical would not mean an invalidation of E=mc^2; instead it would only alter the value of E. This alteration, in any case, may not be substantial.
Igbondewo:
Sorry I could not respond sooner. I had been traveling. You are right that this may not be the best place for this type of discussion. But, what the heck!!! Remember that Biafrans are the best technologists and engineers anywhere.
There is not too much with which to disagree in your summation. However, as you know, two of the most audacious postulates of Einstein’s Relativity directed to particle kinematics led to the our current understanding of the phenomena of Time Dilation and Space Contraction. More on those later. Einstein’s Relativity drastically revised our understanding that length, time, and mass, the three basic quantities in physical measurements, are all independent of the relative motion of an observer.
The Galilean co-ordinate transformations crumbled under Relativity even though it was a bedrock of classical physical analysis and it even withstood classical tests per Newton’s second law under the first Relativity Postulate, i.e., “the laws of physics are covariant under all inertial frames.” Our cab drivers were doing fine after they saw that Newton was still sort of standing, even if only under a classical analysis of the First Postulate.
The Second Relativity Postulate states that “the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, independent of the inertial system, the source, and the observer.” That is where our cab drivers started to have problems with the Jewish guy with a bad hairdo. Postulate 2 was inconsistent under Galilean transformations, even though Postulate 2 was an experimental “fact.” You know those physics people, they must have their symmetry, consistency, and congruency in physical laws and phenomena. Galileo had to go, and he took our cab drivers with him.
Enter the Lorentz co-ordinate transformations, which satisfy the criteria of both Postulates. If you stayed back in the physics classroom after Galileo, you found yourself playing Einstein. You instantiated Time Dilation in the Twin Paradox. Remember that? You even instantiated Space Contraction in the Lorentz meterstick, whose length, we learned, depended on the observer and his inertial frame. Remember also that the relativistic form of a particle's momentum in terms of its mass and its velocity incorporates the Lorentz transformation equations and the concomitant constancy of the speed of light.
Now, back to the guys from Australia. If you re-read the second paragraph of my original post in light of the Second Postulate, you will see that the guys from Australia are attempting to raise some questions not only about the mass-energy relation (E=mc^2), but also about the Second Postulate itself. They would not be the only ones to have done so. But, the others before them conceded that their own experiments had been unsuccessful in disproving the constancy of c. – the very opposite of the claims of these Aussies. Is there an element of Anglo-Germanic rivalry as Ezeka has posited? I wouldn’t put it past them. There is politics, even in Physics.
[ September 07, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Dr. B ]
Posts: 253 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Abegi oh! Na why una come carry nulear physics come put for politics forum so? This one don pass me! Hahaha!!!
Posts: 213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Apparently, many Biafrans remain desciples of Einstein. This one almost got this year's Nobel Prize for Physics. Even, Einstein's people were rooting for him. Kudos to Mr. Oyibo.Posts: 253 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
