Has E = MC2 been redefined?

[Dan Henderson]

Energy = Mass * Constant (the speed of light) squared

I decided to listen to Steven Hawking for 3 hours last night. It was a 3 part series, narrated by him (not always in his voice) based on his 2010 book, The Grand Design. From what I can tell the book is a treatise as to his position that a god is not necessarry in order to have a created universe. I picked it up in the second and third hour then watched the first hour when it repeated. Had I seen the first hour first, I probably would not have bothered with the other two.

Hawking states that 3 things are necessary for a universe to be created: mass, energy, and space. In further explaination, using Einsteins formula from his Special Theory of Relativity, he rationalizes that Energy and Mass are essentally the same, therefore only two things are necessary for the Big Bang to happen, energy and space. He further explains that since energy is not lost, but converted to negative energy, that the universe is made up of equal amounts of positive and negative energy. This leads him to the conclusion that the (actually our) universe adds up to Zero (or nothing) and nothing need no intelligent designer to exist.

How did Hawking get from E=MC2 to E=M?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Energy = Mass * Constant (the speed of light) squared

I decided to listen to Steven Hawking for 3 hours last night. It was a 3 part series, narrated by him (not always in his voice) based on his 2010 book, The Grand Design. From what I can tell the book is a treatise as to his position that a god is not necessarry in order to have a created universe. I picked it up in the second and third hour then watched the first hour when it repeated. Had I seen the first hour first, I probably would not have bothered with the other two.

Hawking states that 3 things are necessary for a universe to be created: mass, energy, and space. In further explaination, using Einsteins formula from his Special Theory of Relativity, he rationalizes that Energy and Mass are essentally the same, therefore only two things are necessary for the Big Bang to happen, energy and space. He further explains that since energy is not lost, but converted to negative energy, that the universe is made up of equal amounts of positive and negative energy. This leads him to the conclusion that the (actually our) universe adds up to Zero (or nothing) and nothing need no intelligent designer to exist.

How did Hawking get from E=MC2 to E=M?

E has always been M. Mass is kind of hard, solid energy, that IF it could be released would be equal to mass times the speed of light (in a vacuum) squared. It is not a one to one correspondence. Takes a lot of energy to make a mass.

[Dan Henderson]

E has always been M. Mass is kind of hard, solid energy, that IF it could be released would be equal to mass times the speed of light (in a vacuum) squared. It is not a one to one correspondence. Takes a lot of energy to make a mass.

I missed that memo. I also don't think you answered the question E is M or M is E is not the same statement as E is equal to M. Speed of light is constant in or out of a vaccum, so I've been told. Hawking said that fact alowng with other natural laws is ... wait for it ... immutable. the C as I seem to recall from elemetary physics is constant and why Einstein used that symbol to represent the speed of light since that speed cannot be changed (immutable)

[Paul DeBaufer]

I missed that memo. I also don't think you answered the question E is M or M is E is not the same statement as E is equal to M. Speed of light is constant in or out of a vaccum, so I've been told. Hawking said that fact alowng with other natural laws is ... wait for it ... immutable. the C as I seem to recall from elemetary physics is constant and why Einstein used that symbol to represent the speed of light since that speed cannot be changed (immutable)

C changes depending on the medium. It is constant at about 3 X 10^8 meters per second in a vacuum. Slows entering air, glass, water, etc., hence indices of refraction, but resumes its speed when it goes back into a vacuum.

E=MC^2 is an equation that tells us how much energy that a mass includes. Mass is energy. The equation just tells how much energy it contained. It's really rather simple, that's the beauty of it.

[Cam Pence]

C changes depending on the medium. It is constant at about 3 X 10^8 meters per second in a vacuum. Slows entering air, glass, water, etc., hence indices of refraction, but resumes its speed when it goes back into a vacuum.

E=MC^2 is an equation that tells us how much energy that a mass includes. Mass is energy. The equation just tells how much energy it contained. It's really rather simple, that's the beauty of it.

Yea...that's what I was thinking.....simple...

[Paul DeBaufer]

Yea...that's what I was thinking.....simple...

Check out General Relativity. Not so simple that one.

[Cam Pence]

Check out General Relativity. Not so simple that one.

Oh so THAT ONE is not simple

[Dan Henderson]

Oh so THAT ONE is not simple

Simple is a relative term ...

[Paul DeBaufer]

Oh so THAT ONE is not simple

Simple is a relative term ...

Yes, my special relativity class was a breeze compared to my general relativity class. Bell's Theorem and wave function were easier. I had a hard time with general relativity.

[Cam Pence]

Yes, my special relativity class was a breeze compared to my general relativity class. Bell's Theorem and wave function were easier. I had a hard time with general relativity.

I feel ya......

[John Kennedy]

I feel ya......

I can definitely relate. As a student at the Univ. of Texas I loved economics courses until I signed up for one in price theory. When I looked at the preface it began with this reassuring message: "While a background in integral or differential calculus would be extremely helpful, it is not absolutely essential." Yeah!
I should have headed for the registrar's office immediately. I didn't.
Unfortunately, it was sort of like the experience related by Texas comedian Ron White. He was rapidly exiting a bar one night when he was stopped by the police. "I had the right to remain silent," he said. "Unfortunately I chose not to."

[Dan Henderson]

C changes depending on the medium. It is constant at about 3 X 10^8 meters per second in a vacuum. Slows entering air, glass, water, etc., hence indices of refraction, but resumes its speed when it goes back into a vacuum.

E=MC^2 is an equation that tells us how much energy that a mass includes. Mass is energy. The equation just tells how much energy it contained. It's really rather simple, that's the beauty of it.

That's refraction, the speed does not change, the perception of speed changes.

[Paul DeBaufer]

That's refraction, the speed does not change, the perception of speed changes.

Not so, you misunderstand physics at this point. The light bends because the velocity changes. I'm sorry if that shatters a false understanding, it is wrong. Turn to any general physics text and it will be there. Check this wiki article http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

[Dan Henderson]

Not so, you misunderstand physics at this point. The light bends because the velocity changes. I'm sorry if that shatters a false understanding, it is wrong. Turn to any general physics text and it will be there. Check this wiki article http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

I looked at that and a couple of others to brush up before I asked the question. You imply that I have a false understanding of the speed of light, I'll give you that if it makes any difference. Yet, it still does not answer the question that I asked. Even so, as I understand this, bending or refracting light changes the direction of light, not the speed. If it does, the changes would be negligible enough to still use it as C and Mass must be multiplied by C squared to equal Energy. Until Mass is multiplied, regardless of speed, it does not equal Energy.

Both the General and Special Theory of Relativity has been questioned by modern physics and quantum mechanics not to mention in the Holy Grail, Sting Theory(ies). Look at the original question. I'll state again to help you out. Steven Hawking refered to Eiinstein's Special Theory of Relatively in order to make HIS case that a god was not needed to create our universe (he belies there are multiple universes). Dan DID NOT refer to the theory to make his case, HAWKING did. E=MC2 does not simplify to E=M as a formula.

My question was how did HE (not me) make that logic jump? These questions assume that Since Hawking cited Einstein, that Hawkings assumes that Einstein is correct.

Paul, you are a biologist, so I expected you to respond, I did not expect contention on this.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I looked at that and a couple of others to brush up before I asked the question. You imply that I have a false understanding of the speed of light, I'll give you that if it makes any difference. Yet, it still does not answer the question that I asked. Even so, as I understand this, bending or refracting light changes the direction of light, not the speed. If it does, the changes would be negligible enough to still use it as C and Mass must be multiplied by C squared to equal Energy. Until Mass is multiplied, regardless of speed, it does not equal Energy.

Both the General and Special Theory of Relativity has been questioned by modern physics and quantum mechanics not to mention in the Holy Grail, Sting Theory(ies). Look at the original question. I'll state again to help you out. Steven Hawking refered to Eiinstein's Special Theory of Relatively in order to make HIS case that a god was not needed to create our universe (he belies there are multiple universes). Dan DID NOT refer to the theory to make his case, HAWKING did. E=MC2 does not simplify to E=M as a formula.

My question was how did HE (not me) make that logic jump? These questions assume that Since Hawking cited Einstein, that Hawkings assumes that Einstein is correct.

Paul, you are a biologist, so I expected you to respond, I did not expect contention on this.

E=MC2 gives us the quantity of energy of a given quantity of mass, and the formula is a abbreviation of the actual formula, an approximation that works for us lay people. IF what Hawking was getting at is that was that the quantity of mass equals the quantity of energy then he is teaching something I never learned in physics classes or his earlier books. If he is simply saying that mass is energy then that squares with what I learned in my class on special relativity. I do not buy Hawking's conclusion even if I accept the dark matter, zero sum idea, that God is unnecessary. Once upon a time I did, but not now.

What's weird to me is I could've sworn when I read both versions of A Brief History of Time that Hawking found God in the end (if not explicitly then implied, as I understood him), which at the time turned me off from him. Now I hear he rejects God, which turns me off to his theories now. Is he attempting to dscribe the universe as it exists or trying to disprove God's existence?

PS Dan I want to apologise for the tone of the post that included "false understanding". As I read it over it sounds defensive, harsh, and insultingly argumentive. I am sorry.

[Dan Henderson]

EWhat's weird to me is I could've sworn when I read both versions of A Brief History of Time that Hawking found God in the end (if not explicitly then implied, as I understood him), which at the time turned me off from him. Now I hear he rejects God, which turns me off to his theories now. Is he attempting to dscribe the universe as it exists or trying to disprove God's existence?

PS Dan I want to apologise for the tone of the post that included "false understanding". As I read it over it sounds defensive, harsh, and insultingly argumentive. I am sorry.

Its no a problem. I am definately a layman. Einstein found God. Hawkins does not deny the existance of God, he just states he does not believe in a personal God. He also impies that humans can be reprogrammed by electrical pulses, believes that their decisions are not freewill rather determined by our environmental programming, as well as stating that reality is in the mind of the individual.

[Rich Schmidt]

IF what Hawking was getting at is that was that the quantity of mass equals the quantity of energy then he is teaching something I never learned in physics classes or his earlier books. If he is simply saying that mass is energy then that squares with what I learned in my class on special relativity.

I didn't watch the show or read the book, but from Dan's description it sounds like Hawking was stating the second, not the first. Energy and mass are essentially the same "stuff," just in differing amounts and configurations. If they weren't, you couldn't have an equation like E= MC(squared).

Dan? Does that work for you?

[Paul DeBaufer]

I didn't watch the show or read the book, but from Dan's description it sounds like Hawking was stating the second, not the first. Energy and mass are essentially the same "stuff," just in differing amounts and configurations. If they weren't, you couldn't have an equation like E= MC(squared).

Dan? Does that work for you?

Thank you, Rich. That was what I was trying, unsuccessfully, to say. You made it so clear.

[Dan Henderson]

Here is where I am coming from:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...pt/cspeed.html

Note that this definition expresses the aparent change in the speed of light through medium (refraction) as effective speed

[Gina Stevenson]

Y

Yea...that's what I was thinking.....simple...

Awww, you beat me to it! Simple!? Yeah, right.

Simple is a relative term ...

Uhhh, depends on which "relative" about whom you are speaking.

[John Reilly]

quote "This leads him to the conclusion that the (actually our) universe adds up to Zero (or nothing) and nothing need no intelligent designer to exist."

How can an intelligent physicist suggest that even one molecule of mass can emerge from nothing. Steven Hawking was sucked into his own black hole of circular logic.

[Dan Henderson]

quote "This leads him to the conclusion that the (actually our) universe adds up to Zero (or nothing) and nothing need no intelligent designer to exist."

How can an intelligent physicist suggest that even one molecule of mass can emerge from nothing. Steven Hawking was sucked into his own black hole of circular logic.

This is the area I wanted to get to without regurgitating 3 hours of narrative. I have been introduced to every bit of science he used (or rather cited) to draw his conclusions but I could not figure out how he got to his conclusions. I was thinking that maybe its more palatable to "believe" in a non-intelligent design of the universe if all you need is energy and space. I guess its easier to "believe" that energy came from nothing than to "believe" that mass came from nothing.

Incidentally, for all you philosophers, Hawking aslo believes that science renders philosophy irrelevant.

I thought I was going to be wowed by a brilliant mind...I actually believed I was going to learn something. I felt nothing but pity at the end of the 3 hours.

[Paul DeBaufer]

This is the area I wanted to get to without regurgitating 3 hours of narrative. I have been introduced to every bit of science he used (or rather cited) to draw his conclusions but I could not figure out how he got to his conclusions. I was thinking that maybe its more palatable to "believe" in a non-intelligent design of the universe if all you need is energy and space. I guess its easier to "believe" that energy came from nothing than to "believe" that mass came from nothing.

Incidentally, for all you philosophers, Hawking aslo believes that science renders philosophy irrelevant.

I thought I was going to be wowed by a brilliant mind...I actually believed I was going to learn something. I felt nothing but pity at the end of the 3 hours.

I'm losing confidence in Hawking, science is a form of philosophy, besides he's theoretical, how can you claim theoretical science and deny philosophy?

It's been 10 years since I read any current cosmology pertaining to the origins of the universe. However, there were problems describing conditions back beyond the first milliseconds after the Big Bang. So, while they may claim nothing existed prior to the big bang the science fails, so that is at best an assumption (or was then). Then the assumptions were that space, time, matter (both energy and mass) were created in those milliseconds post bang. I'm not sure, but seems that nothing can't go bang, big or otherwise. I followed the science from several milliseconds post big bang to present was left wondering about those first conditions.

[Dan Henderson]

I'm losing confidence in Hawking, science is a form of philosophy, besides he's theoretical, how can you claim theoretical science and deny philosophy?

It's been 10 years since I read any current cosmology pertaining to the origins of the universe. However, there were problems describing conditions back beyond the first milliseconds after the Big Bang. So, while they may claim nothing existed prior to the big bang the science fails, so that is at best an assumption (or was then). Then the assumptions were that space, time, matter (both energy and mass) were created in those milliseconds post bang. I'm not sure, but seems that nothing can't go bang, big or otherwise. I followed the science from several milliseconds post big bang to present was left wondering about those first conditions.

Here is first positive reaction quote from the wiki page

Evolutionary biologist and advocate for atheism, Richard Dawkins, welcomed Hawking's position and said that "Darwinism kicked God out of biology but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace."[13]

[Paul DeBaufer]

Here is first positive reaction quote from the wiki page

Evolutionary biologist and advocate for atheism, Richard Dawkins, welcomed Hawking's position and said that "Darwinism kicked God out of biology but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace."[13]

I used to like Dawkins, read many of his books. But now when I look at him I see me prior to Christ, a fundie atheist/philosopher/scientist who is stuck. Thank God for God because now I am no longer stuck and can actually think, not just think I am thinking.

[Dan Henderson]

Ad a critical reaction from the same page

In Scientific American, John Horgan is not sympathetic to the book: "M-theory, theorists now realize, comes in an almost infinite number of versions, which "predict" an almost infinite number of possible universes. Critics call this the "Alice's Restaurant problem," a reference to the refrain of the old Arlo Guthrie folk song: "You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant." Of course, a theory that predicts everything really doesn't predict anything... The anthropic principle has always struck me as so dumb that I can't understand why anyone takes it seriously. It's cosmology's version of creationism. ... The physicist Tony Rothman, with whom I worked at Scientific American in the 1990s, liked to say that the anthropic principle in any form is completely ridiculous and hence should be called CRAP. ... Hawking is telling us that unconfirmable M-theory plus the anthropic tautology represents the end of that quest. If we believe him, the joke’s on us."[30]

[Kyle Borger]

God = C+J+H = ♥
I like this equation the best

Sorry Dan, it was the only way I could join your conversation.

Carry on.

[Dan Henderson]

God = C+J+H = ♥
I like this equation the best

Sorry Dan, it was the only way I could join your conversation.

Carry on.

cool.

[Dan Henderson]

This 3 hours did pose a what-if scenario to me as I was listening. If the Church had not persecuted the early scientists (such as Galleleo), would their be such a division? Would large groups of scientists be working so hard to try to remove God from the equation? Would that type of scientist even be tolerated in the profession.

I tend to think that if the Church had reacted properly early on to scientific discovery , and treated discoverers with respect, that both religion and science would be better off. I'd like to think that, but it is speculation similar to asking what if Adam and Even chose not to eat from the tree.

[Paul DeBaufer]

This 3 hours did pose a what-if scenario to me as I was listening. If the Church had not persecuted the early scientists (such as Galleleo), would their be such a division? Would large groups of scientists be working so hard to try to remove God from the equation? Would that type of scientist even be tolerated in the profession.

I tend to think that if the Church had reacted properly early on to scientific discovery , and treated discoverers with respect, that both religion and science would be better off. I'd like to think that, but it is speculation similar to asking what if Adam and Even chose not to eat from the tree.

I thank you for this Dan. I think you are on to something here. If I recall reading Origin and Augustine correctly they kind of warned us. How much of atheistic science is reactionary is a great question. I think for me I would have to say that that was partially (at least) true. I would never have owned it then, wouldn't have been able to see it in my reaction to the suggestion.

[Dwayne Petry]

You guys are waaaay too deep for me!

Did have a thought, though.

If GOD, creator of light, had worked at the speed of light, He could have created all things in maybeeeee, six days!

[Dan Henderson]

You guys are waaaay too deep for me!

Did have a thought, though.

If GOD, creator of light, had worked at the speed of light, He could have created all things in maybeeeee, six days!

That was pretty deep in and of itself. What if God is not bound by the immutable laws of physics? Then he could work FTL?

[Gina Stevenson]

That was pretty deep in and of itself. What if God is not bound by the immutable laws of physics? Then he could work FTL?

You've made me google twice now recently. FTL=Faster Than Light for whoever else wasn't sure.
(forget what the other one was now)

[Jim Chabot]

That was pretty deep in and of itself. What if God is not bound by the immutable laws of physics? Then he could work FTL?

Ridiculous! Of course God is bound by the immutable laws of physics, He is the one who set them in place and made them immutable. Nothing more than the question regarding His ability to create a rock so large that he cannot lift it. Of course He could still lift it, yet He has chosen not to make such a rock.

And if He has actually moved faster than the speed of light. Well no one has seen Him do so!

Including Mr. Hawkings

[Dan Henderson]

I owe you a chalk mark Paul. I did some further reading. When defining C as 1, AKA the speed of light is constant and =1, then E=M. I also think I may have been combining propagation of light with measured speed of light and treating them as if they were the same. It may be that I was trying to say that propagation does not change whereas the measured speed, based on medium, does.

As for the general theory and the space-time discussion, I know I cannot discuss that intelligently. My view of this though (space, time, and/or space-time) is that they are measurement tools not objects.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I owe you a chalk mark Paul. I did some further reading. When defining C as 1, AKA the speed of light is constant and =1, then E=M. I also think I may have been combining propagation of light with measured speed of light and treating them as if they were the same. It may be that I was trying to say that propagation does not change whereas the measured speed, based on medium, does.

As for the general theory and the space-time discussion, I know I cannot discuss that intelligently. My view of this though (space, time, and/or space-time) is that they are measurement tools not objects.

I had a 16 week class in general relativity, passed it and still can't discuss it intelligently.

[Dan Henderson]

From the Flat-Earth Wiki:

Q: "What is underneath the Earth?"
A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants and a turtle.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eDiscworld.png

[Gina Stevenson]

From the Flat-Earth Wiki:

Q: "What is underneath the Earth?"
A: This is unknown. Some believe it to be just rocks, others believe the Earth rests on the back of four elephants[I]and a turtle.[/I]

Speaking of turtles, here is something interesting I saw on the news tonight. 115 years together and then this?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1581463.html

[Dan Henderson]

Speaking of turtles, here is something interesting I saw on the news tonight. 115 years together and then this?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1581463.html

She's mad at him because he got the assignment to help the 4 elephants and is too lazy to go. She said it was a great honor and responsibility ....

[Daniel Hamlin]

Speaking of turtles, here is something interesting I saw on the news tonight. 115 years together and then this?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1581463.html

She really let herself go. I think he is going for someone with half her shell.