tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post2402455371684552176..comments2023-10-30T06:57:28.673-04:00Comments on Science Sense: Why c squared?eyesopenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10419000920988102273noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-44522754533695939202020-08-17T13:14:50.666-04:002020-08-17T13:14:50.666-04:00The question posed is real and it is unavoidable. ...The question posed is real and it is unavoidable. Out of all the infinite possibilities of values why is c squared an essential value in the equation and what does c squared "look like" in what universe or realm? My answer is that our current mindset and brains probably cannot fathom the answer since by apparent definition c squared is outside the realm of our experience. But the idea that time ceases exist --- or would that it would not be nearly as important as it is now to our knowledge of physical reality --- is appealing. It suggests that time and space would be fractal, flexible or fungible depending upon what means were used to access such a realm.Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15643815758699508318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-74038375606739663812020-08-17T04:36:12.823-04:002020-08-17T04:36:12.823-04:00You can delete my nonsense above if it will just l...You can delete my nonsense above if it will just lead to confusion, as I wasn't speaking correctly of physics, per se.<br /><br />All I ever wanted to know is why c is SQUARED in the famous equation.<br />Not why mathematically. I get that. I want to know why ontologically, why it is intrinsic to the nature of the universe.<br /><br />The fact that it comes out to be the SQUARED speed of light has to mean something more than just the math, or the units being reconciled and what not.<br /><br />Is it just because the original equation took into account the momentum, or kinetic energy too? And the simplified version is only rest mass energy? I don't think that's the case either.<br /><br />This is why I ask people to imagine what the speed of light squared would look like in the universe, even though it is nonsensical in our current understanding of physics. Would it just be a faster beam of light? I think there is more information hidden in that equation than what the physics community acknowledges.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05337991472879439428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-7675811487520054552020-08-10T04:06:09.421-04:002020-08-10T04:06:09.421-04:00Actually I think the speed of light squared could ...Actually I think the speed of light squared could be manifested in the universe as heat. At least that is one way I am willing to consider it in my thought experiments. Not based on traditional physics. But if I had to make the speed of light squared into a mental image, I might consider it heat.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05337991472879439428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-5671868499933295632020-08-01T02:16:40.538-04:002020-08-01T02:16:40.538-04:00I have pondered the why c squared question for 30 ...I have pondered the why c squared question for 30 years, but not in the way you might think. I have understood the units and the derivation of the formula, but I've wanted to know why in the universe did the speed of light squared happen to be the magic number to draw the equivalence of mass and energy. After reading so many responses that get lost in the math, I realized I had to formulate my question better, as it is more philosophical than mathematical.<br /><br />So here is the question I would like to pose to the physics professors, that might get to the heart of what some of you are trying to understand:<br /><br />What would a physical manifestation of the squared speed of light look like?<br /><br />Now I know it is just a number, a place-holder, in the equation. But I have believe that if you can answer this question, you could explain it better to the rest of us.<br /><br />What material representation in the universe would you attribute to the speed of light squared? What comes to mind? What image would you draw if you had to symbolize it with a picture?<br /><br />For the speed of light, we think of a beam of light traveling through space. But what would a beam of light squared look like. I realize it is the speed that is squared, not the actual light. But perhaps this is where the dimensions come in, to help us understand? Instead of a beam of light, are we to think of an explosion of light in all different directions and dimensions of space?<br /><br />I think that is the question people want answers to. It only took me 30 years of asking the wrong questions before I was able to formulate the right one. And I have all sorts of ideas on what to do with that answer, if anyone could answer it, please?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05337991472879439428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-77484374022442055012020-07-28T08:07:32.922-04:002020-07-28T08:07:32.922-04:00Hi, does Einstien's special theory allow for &...Hi, does Einstien's special theory allow for "faster than light", if so then where ?Drewsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02745770282941755488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-25073528636922727842019-06-15T13:39:32.470-04:002019-06-15T13:39:32.470-04:00Thank you for your blog! It's great. I only ho...Thank you for your blog! It's great. I only hope that my own science blog can compare! (https://dalebrythescienceguyblogspot.wordpress.com/)<br />Clear skies! Dale Alan Bryanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17685407312690246580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-17794457420889465522018-11-21T11:16:54.868-05:002018-11-21T11:16:54.868-05:00After no satisfactory physical interpretation of t...After no satisfactory physical interpretation of this formula as why c was squared in this famous.I tried with my thought experiment as Follow.<br /><br />We all know <br /><br />E=mc2<br /><br />Now we can write this as<br /><br />E= m×c×c<br />E= m×d/t×c<br />E= m×c/t×d<br /><br />Now c/t is equal accelaration of light in 1 sec and d is the distance travel by light in 1 sec.<br /><br />Light achieve c speed in 1 sec so its acceleration equal cm/sec2<br /><br />And length travel by light in 1 sec is also c that means d=c in case of vaccum.<br /><br />We put together again every part and it again become <br /><br />E=m×cxc= mc2<br /><br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05264774848004887535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-72063681474780356952018-10-24T19:25:05.795-04:002018-10-24T19:25:05.795-04:00Can E=mc*2 be solved or recast, not for energy (E)...Can E=mc*2 be solved or recast, not for energy (E) but for time? Or t= xx ? <br />I notice that the speed of light is used as a constant, but it can be broken down into several components, including time. <br />Could someone please walk me through this 101-level question? <br />Or am I misunderstanding the nature of c as it is used here?Cloudfacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06437483145868470068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-90993571873208097162018-03-22T01:28:36.160-04:002018-03-22T01:28:36.160-04:00Hi, eyesopen.
Could you address the c^2 question ...Hi, eyesopen.<br /><br />Could you address the c^2 question in terms of quantum field theory, the Dirac dual-particles (I call them chiral doppelgangers) and the Higgs field mechanism (tachyonic condensation) / Yukawa interaction?<br /><br />I think that'd clear up a lot of misconceptions and really dig down to the underlying physical reason for the use of c^2.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-1711666590045963842018-03-07T05:46:37.513-05:002018-03-07T05:46:37.513-05:00This is an interesting thread and after reading it...This is an interesting thread and after reading it for the past hour I've reached a state wherein I no longer wonder about the answer to the original question because I'm mentally exhausted!<br />Well, I guess I can accept the idea that the "speed of light" is always expressed, in physics, as "C^2", period, end-of-discussion, that's just the way things are, like it or not, now DEAL with it!<br />Ok. If that's the only way out I'll have to take it.<br />Decades ago I pondered a similar question, which was: "If you square the speed of light you'll wind up with different results depending on how you measure the speed. For example, if you say the speed of light is "1 unit per ...whatever slice of time" and then square it? Well, one times one is one, so you haven't altered the speed at all. And so forth. (Defining the speed of light in, say, centimeters per second and then squaring that number results in a vastly different result than if you square the same speed measured in miles per second, or parsec's per second, or whatever, etc.) Which may come closer to getting at what the original questioner was getting at - unlike any of the admittedly learned, but off-target answers which followed. Anyhow... interesting subject. Have a nice day!Mrwhatsitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-64322414104488467182018-02-21T18:06:33.829-05:002018-02-21T18:06:33.829-05:00The third dimension is not well explainedThe third dimension is not well explainedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-9201244451647863962017-11-03T01:38:21.413-04:002017-11-03T01:38:21.413-04:00The energy of anything is a component of these to ...The energy of anything is a component of these to velocities gravity and horizontal spin....when a skater focuses her mass on a single point of axis her blade tip she expends energy to initiate a spin her arms extended parallel to the rotation of the planet....which is a force available to everyone on the planet this horizontal energy geometrically amplifies her angular speed as she withdraws her arms that amplification is concentrated further...conservation of angular momentum. ...this is far beyond what she could ever generate by her muscular potential aloneAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10288347203506492771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-20618055960049026342017-11-03T01:17:17.776-04:002017-11-03T01:17:17.776-04:00The answer is found in cetrifugal force math is no...The answer is found in cetrifugal force math is not required to understand centrifugal is centri fugit to escape the center...tempus fugit time flies ...fugitive flees justice ....gravity pulls toward the center....centrifugal force is another word for escape velocity...gravity is a single vertical axial downward pull if that was the only force to overcome the speed of that one force is all that would be required...but it's not.... this planet is rotating....directly perpendicular to gravity ...this is the perpendicular axis this forms the square you need energy to defeat the speed or energy of rotation not just gravity....as a matter of fact these two components are critical to calculating mass Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10288347203506492771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-35348739986268858032017-06-23T13:57:44.456-04:002017-06-23T13:57:44.456-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15643815758699508318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-91188370483201084892017-06-05T03:49:12.842-04:002017-06-05T03:49:12.842-04:00Thank you!!! Finally, an explanation of why light ...Thank you!!! Finally, an explanation of why light squared, that I understand!! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-81935891610464680572017-05-19T11:38:09.850-04:002017-05-19T11:38:09.850-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07080414102154744235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-74608517247819746982017-04-18T07:55:15.863-04:002017-04-18T07:55:15.863-04:00"As for c, that is the speed of light in vacu..."As for c, that is the speed of light in vacuum, and if you ask why c, the answer is that it is the initial letter of celeritas, the Latin word meaning speed."Simon Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08981205493254187273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-13602377112641481212017-04-13T16:57:02.276-04:002017-04-13T16:57:02.276-04:00Why, if e = "E"nergy,
m= "M"a...Why, if e = "E"nergy,<br /><br />m= "M"ass<br /><br />c= speed of light?????<br /><br />why not "SL" or "S" or "L" ???<br /><br />Can someone explain why the speed of light is "C"<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-50278991841176796442017-04-01T18:50:31.842-04:002017-04-01T18:50:31.842-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07080414102154744235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-36948521431080571062016-03-21T21:55:09.081-04:002016-03-21T21:55:09.081-04:00hi im a 10 year old boy and about space time i thi...hi im a 10 year old boy and about space time i think light years would change because C changes with space time and the length is longer but and the time is slower so that means mc2 really has is c2 in space so space time is like earths speed of light which both of are part of c2 because c2 is made of mass and the speed of light but its different with out an atmosphere. this proves that c2 is slower in space and that the speed of light is not the same in space because there is no atmosphere so that leads to space time so in space E=c2JonahBeasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14049657570208983173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-50524978004961722272015-12-15T10:53:56.769-05:002015-12-15T10:53:56.769-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07959566839967354253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-22365681517848890232015-12-14T10:59:17.564-05:002015-12-14T10:59:17.564-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07959566839967354253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-34350984633438349982015-12-13T22:49:58.421-05:002015-12-13T22:49:58.421-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07959566839967354253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-67106638553628404352015-10-23T11:54:41.416-04:002015-10-23T11:54:41.416-04:00Units are everything in physics and this explanati...Units are everything in physics and this explanation is spot on. If you're having trouble understanding E=MC^2 still, it's not any part of that equation that's confusing you, it's the unit dimensions of energy itself.<br /><br />If you have an apple that's keeps moving forward two feet every second, you can say it has a speed in distance per time, say 2 ft/sec. Give that handy little equation a second, and it'll always give you back two feet, give it five seconds and it'll give you ten, it's like a mini computer program that keeps track of where your apple is for you. <br /><br />You can also say that a moving mass has a momentum. A half pound apple moving at two feet per second has 1 lb*ft/sec s of momentum. An eight pound bowling ball crawling forward a foot every eight seconds would have the same momentum (8/8 lb*ft/sec s), and if your apple met your bowling ball head on you could see these were the same as they stopped each other or sent each other back at the same speed.<br /><br />Energy adds even MORE units but it becomes even more useful. If you have an apple or bowling ball standing still (relative to you), and you want to GIVE it a momentum with a certain amount of stored energy you have, the energy dimensions tell you how much space and how much time it will take to do it (if it can be done at all). Because, as the mass ACCELERATES towards your target momentum (adding more feet/second every second, or ft/sec^2), it's moving further all the time, and because taking more DISTANCE to accelerate to your target momentum (where your distance square comes in: ft^2/sec^2) implies using more energy, the most effective way to use your energy is essentially all at once, not a little over a long time. Therefore: if you have a mass and a speed you want to accelerate it to, the dimensions of energy itself (mass times speed^2) tell you how much minimum energy you need to do it.<br /><br />So, if we have an apple and we want to convert it to pure energy, i.e. have every quanta and particle in it decohere from the others and begin moving at the speed of light, we are asking what kind of energy it would take to give a half pound apple the momentum 1/2 lb * C. Of course, accelerating it over time wouldn't do, not only would that never reach C, but eventually it would just add more mass to the apple messing up our calculations. Plus, we know taking more space and time is always less energy-efficient. We would have to accelerate our apple to the speed of light INSTANTANEOUSLY. Fortunately, Einstein figured out that instantaneity itself has a speed: the speed of all massless particles, all information spread, causality, and the limit speed of space-time itself. This speed is also C. The maximum energy that a mass can be turned into therefore equals that mass times by C, then times by C again. If we could flip a switch and turn all the mass in an object into massless energy instantaneously, it would HAVE TO deliver exactly this much energy. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16586522713652025796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6759676821721103017.post-40061913812366681962015-07-28T01:25:22.217-04:002015-07-28T01:25:22.217-04:00OK...we know that e=mc2 works. But, I do not under...OK...we know that e=mc2 works. But, I do not understand how and why Einstein decided to use the speed of light and then squared it to establish the energy component.<br /><br />Another related question is: having established the speed of light early on, how and why was it then related to the energy product of any mass? The old story about the expanding rocket ship really gets me crazy. Is it the CERN experiments that gave proof to it? Or was Einstein's guess more than a guess. So, it would be helpful to know why Einstein plugged the speed of light into the energy formula and squared it.Lecturernoreply@blogger.com