How Smart Was Einstein?
-
So smart that it took "a heroic computational effort by French, German and Hungarian physicists" to confirm E=mc^2, 103 years after Einstein propose it. Seriously, the man was a genius.
SourceQUOTEe=mc2: 103 years later, Einstein proven right
Fri, Nov 21 09:58 AM
It's taken more than a century, but Einstein's celebrated formula e=mc2 has finally been corroborated, thanks to a heroic computational effort by French, German and Hungarian physicists.
A brainpower consortium led by Laurent Lellouch of France's Centre for Theoretical Physics, using some of the world's mightiest supercomputers, have set down the calculations for estimating the mass of protons and neutrons, the particles at the nucleus of atoms.
According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons.
The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five per cent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 per cent?
The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons.
In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.
The e=mc2 formula shows that mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass.
By showing how much energy would be released if a certain amount of mass were to be converted into energy, the equation has been used many times, most famously as the inspirational basis for building atomic weapons.
But resolving e-mc2 at the scale of sub-atomic particles -- in equations called quantum chromodynamics -- has been fiendishly difficult.
"Until now, this has been a hypothesis," France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said proudly in a press release. -
QUOTE (Tom @ Nov 21 2008, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>thats kind of oversimplifying things...
Surprisingly enough, this article intended for normal people does not delve into the intricacies of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. -
QUOTE (Governor @ Nov 21 2008, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Surprisingly enough, this article intended for normal people does not delve into the intricacies of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.
I think his point was that when you oversimplify this sort of stuff you have to be super careful that you aren't... well... wrong. In this case, all this is really cool and all, and is a pretty significant step forward in our understanding of subatomic particles and stuff. But wasn't Einstein proven just as right when the first A-bomb blew up successfully? Converting mass into energy that could level cities is just as good as this. -
QUOTE (ANunes @ Nov 21 2008, 04:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think his point was that when you oversimplify this sort of stuff you have to be super careful that you aren't... well... wrong. In this case, all this is really cool and all, and is a pretty significant step forward in our understanding of subatomic particles and stuff. But wasn't Einstein proven just as right when the first A-bomb blew up successfully? Converting mass into energy that could level cities is just as good as this.
It was proven that mass could be converted into energy, but it didn't prove the accuracy of his equations in a subatomic scale. -
QUOTE (Governor @ Nov 21 2008, 04:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It was proven that mass could be converted into energy, but it didn't prove the accuracy of his equations in a subatomic scale.
Does this? It sounds, from this simple article, like they just have more evidence that there's wackiness at that level.
-
QUOTE (ANunes @ Nov 21 2008, 01:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think his point was that when you oversimplify this sort of stuff you have to be super careful that you aren't... well... wrong. In this case, all this is really cool and all, and is a pretty significant step forward in our understanding of subatomic particles and stuff. But wasn't Einstein proven just as right when the first A-bomb blew up successfully? Converting mass into energy that could level cities is just as good as this.
Actually, that (the H bomb, not the A bomb, which had nothing to do with E=MC^2) proved "special relativity" not "general relativity", two separate portions of the theory, what the French are claiming to have proven is general relativity and how it ties into string theory and quantum physics as they are currently thought to perform, unifying the theories to quite an extent, and making them cover the "weaknesses" in the others, the way that Newton's Three Laws are ways of restating the same things in such a way as to explain differing behaviors that are all relative of a single principal. -
QUOTE (PsychoBud @ Nov 27 2008, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Actually, that (the H bomb, not the A bomb, which had nothing to do with E=MC^2) proved "special relativity" not "general relativity", two separate portions of the theory, what the French are claiming to have proven is general relativity and how it ties into string theory and quantum physics as they are currently thought to perform, unifying the theories to quite an extent, and making them cover the "weaknesses" in the others, the way that Newton's Three Laws are ways of restating the same things in such a way as to explain differing behaviors that are all relative of a single principal.
An A-Bomb, Atom Bomb, or Fission Bomb was first developed and tested in 1945 and was Codenamed Trinity. An H Bomb, Hydrogen Bomb, or Fusion Bomb was first developed and tested in 1952 and was Codenamed Ivy.
The A-Bomb came first and proved that mass can be converted into energy by a coefficient of the square of the speed of light. Neither proved special relativity, which is the theory dealing with objects traveling near the speed of light, and the subsequent increase in mass and the associated time dilation, especially since there are about 6 experiments that took place prior to the first bomb being detonated. I was also under the impression that E=MC^2 has everything to do with both special and general relativity.
Given all the information in the article, it seems like all they managed to provide evidence for was evidence of mass being lost to energy. What's all this about making connections between string theory and general relativity (which is where the whole gravity = bends in space time idea comes from)?
-
Not from that article, from the peer reviewed paper the article was reporting on, as puiblished...if you read the whole story, it was easy to find it in the Physics Journals as something BIG that was getting alot of stir going.
I didn't understand the maths included in the journal report, but the introduction and conclusion are easy enough to understand for someone who's taken basic college physics. -
As a lazy-troll, I formally request a link to said journal. String theory fascinates me, but then again so does thinking about what the universe would look like if everything were 100% transparent... And I put about as much stock in it as a field of study. Until I see some experiment that shows how the only way situation x could occur is if object y was comprised of a system of vibrating string like particles... I've decided to relegate string theory to the realm of philosophy. I don't try to make my world fit into the scheme of pragmatism, and if it does it just strikes me as a happy accident.
-
QUOTE (ANunes @ Dec 15 2008, 12:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>As a lazy-troll, I formally request a link to said journal. String theory fascinates me, but then again so does thinking about what the universe would look like if everything were 100% transparent...
If everything were 100% transparent, the universe would look like... nothing. -
QUOTE (Jedd @ Dec 15 2008, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If everything were 100% transparent, the universe would look like... nothing.
Sorry, except stars. For some reason when you combust gas in this fictional universe, it still generates light.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!