SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 526:
Line 526: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
enough is enough
''Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that...'' Yes, they can. And they can be found at the websites of the top schools. Andrew Schlafly, I dare you to find a top-10 physics department which doesn't make such "claims"! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:20, 30 January 2013 (EST)
''Claims can be found on liberal, second-tier college websites that...'' Yes, they can. And they can be found at the websites of the top schools. Andrew Schlafly, I dare you to find a top-10 physics department which doesn't make such "claims"! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:20, 30 January 2013 (EST)
==Enough is enough. Andy, please stop it==
This has gone on long enough. It's time for you to pay attention to what everyone else, and the evidence, and logic, are telling you. You have been engaging in what appears to be deliberate obfuscation, willful misunderstanding of terms and concepts, and repeated attempts to change the subject, for long enough. It's time to stop.
You have attempted to change the subject to Bible reading. There is a cute comic on the subject of correlation vs. causation [http://xkcd.com/552/ here].
You have attempted to change the subject to politics. It has nothing to do with liberalism. While moral relativism is a phenomenon more commonly associated with liberals than with conservatives, that has absolutely nothing to do with relativity.
You have attempted to change the subject to the relative merits of theoreticians and practical scientists/inventors, and the preferences of the Nobel prize judges. It's true that Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger didn't invent any devices (as far as I know), but they discovered quantum mechanics. The Nobel committee gives great weight to theoretical advances. Maybe you disagree with that policy, but that's the policy. Robert Dicke, in addition to being an inventor, was a good theoretician. But your assertions that he
#was the greatest American physicist ever, and perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century,
#criticized or refuted relativity,
#was denied the Nobel Prize because because of this
are all questionable and excessive. Inventing the lock-in amplifier was nice, but you don't win Nobels for that. There are many other American physicists (Michelson, Morley, Feynmann, Weinberg, Bethe, Compton, Anderson, Glashow, Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley, etc. etc.) that one could claim were superior. And, if one goes outside the United States but stays within the 20<sup>th</sup> century, the list is even longer—Bohr, Dirac, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, etc. Also, I assume you know that ''Dicke accepted special relativity'', as did every other scientist worthy of the name. His disagreement was over the claim that general relativity explains gravity. He accepted the metric tensor on 4-dimensional spacetime, and Riemann's tensor, and Ricci's tensor, and Einstein's tensor, and that gravity arises from Ricci's and Einstein's tensors. He simply had a different "scalar-tensor" formulation than Einstein, about how Ricci's and Einstein's tensors arise from matter. His theory becomes equivalent to Einstein's if the coupling constant (ω) goes to infinity. And you must know, because you have cited the article [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html here], spacecraft measurements ''have definitively refuted the Brans-Dicke theory.'' (The article is currently behind a subscription firewall, but I have read it.) You do not win Nobels for proposing theories that, brilliant though they may be, are wrong. And your often-repeated statement that he was denied a Nobel for criticizing relativity is preposterous. He didn't criticize it, and you don't know why he never won the prize. There are many physicists, and few prizes, and many worthy people never win the prize.
You have accused the Nobel committee, and many other people, of being liberals, and of being biased against criticism of relativity. Even if true, that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct. Even if universities would never give a faculty post to someone who criticizes relativity (a completely unsupported claim), that has nothing to do with whether E=mc^2 is correct.
You have repeated the meaningless term "liberal claptrap" again and again. It has no place in a discussion of an equation, and it convinces no one.
You have repeatedly maintained that, since this equation doesn't "unify" gravity and light, or gravity and matter, or gravity and the strong force, it can't be right. Unification of fundamental forces is not easy. And even though unification of all fundamental forces has not been achieved, it is still the case that the mass of an alpha particle plus a Radon-222 nucleus is less than that of a Radium-222 6 nucleus.
You have made what seems to me to be willful attempts to obfuscate issues and terms, like gravity, light, mass, and energy:
*E=mc^2 has nothing to do with gravity. The only connection is that the Earth's gravity provides a convenient way of measuring the mass of produce in grocery stores. "m" is for inertial mass, a scientific concept that you must have learned about at Princeton. The masses of various particles (more about that later) are measured with a mass spectrometer, not with a scale.
*E=mc^2 doesn't directly relate to light. The phrase "speed of light" is just a convenient term for the time-vs.-space calibration constant of relativity. It happens that light travels at that speed. Now the intellectual distinction between the speed at which light travels and the calibration constant was not understood clearly in the early days, but it is now known, from the relativistic formulation of electromagnetism in terms of the Faraday tensor, that the calibration constant "c" appears in the wave equation, deduced from Maxwell's equations. This derivation is not usually handled at the undergraduate level, and you may not have seen it. But it isn't necessary for an understanding of E=mc^2. The speed "c" is fundamental. Light travels at that speed because of the 4-tensor formulation of electrodynamics, using the Faraday tensor on Minkowski space-time. "c" appears in E=mc^2 because it is fundamental to the Lorentz transform.
*Your claims about your "energy increasing by mc^2" when you drink water seems to be a ludicrous attempt to confuse what it means to "have energy". It's not the same thing as what you hear about in advertisements for "energy drinks". You don't "have" that energy in the sense of being able to leap tall buildings or bench-press 1000 pounds.. I'm sure you know that, and are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue. The only sense in which one "has" that energy in any normal sense of the release of energy, is that if you combined with an anti-Andy made of antimatter, the energy would be released, and, if you and the anti-Andy had consumed a liter of water and anti-water respectively, that much more energy would be released. But other than that, the energy is not accessible. Of course you *can* release energy, albeit a microscopically smaller amount than mc^2, when you consume more nutritious substances, like cake.
Now, getting to the nuclear reactions, this is the sense, and the only sense, in which E=mc^2 is meaningful. You've seen, and apparently ignored, the extensive discussion above and on the article page, but I'll go through it one more time. Please pay close attention.
The mass of the Radium-226 atom is 226.0254098 amu, which is 3.753239901×10<sup>-25</sup> kg. I hope you accept this.
The mass of the Radon-222 atom is 222.0175777 amu, which is 3.6866882892×10<sup>-25</sup> kg.
The mass of the Helium-4 atom (alpha particle) is 4.002603254 amu, which is 6.64647848859×10<sup>-27</sup> kg.
When a Radium-226 atom undergoes alpha decay, it turns into a Radon-222 atom plus a Helium-4 atom, which have a combined mass of 3.753153074×10<sup>-25</sup> kg.
These don't add up. 8.682702295×10<sup>-30</sup> kg were lost. OK?
Now the energy released is 4.871 MeV, which is 7.8042×10<sup>-13</sup> Joules.
The ratio of the energy released to the mass lost is 8.9882×10<sup>16</sup> meters squared per second squared.
The square root of that is 2.998×10<sup>8</sup> meters per second. It is a speed, and it matches the speed of light.
This relationship has been verified for many many reactions.
That's all that E=mc^2 is saying. Nothing more. Nothing about eating cake.
So, instead of repeatedly calling it "liberal claptrap", you would do a much better job of convincing people that the equation is incorrect by coming up with some other explanation for why a radium atom loses 4.871 Mev / c^2 of mass when it emits a 4.781 MeV alpha particle.
Now I will agree that E=mc^2 is surprisingly hard to derive, for such a simple equation. Correct and understandable derivations are actually hard to come by—''Spacetime Physics'' by Taylor and Wheeler finally gets to it, in an extremely complicated way, starting around page 120. At the risk of being immodest, I recommend my own derivation on another wiki as being fairly direct. You can find it by Googling the exact quoted phrase "sees the light traveling a longer distance". Whether it is a "rigorous proof" is in the eye of the beholder.
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 19:59, 31 January 2013 (EST)