Jump to content


Photo

What if m=ec^2?

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Ira

Ira

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2655
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Mitzpe Ramon, Israel

Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:14 PM

In another possible world where this law held instead of the one we have now, what would the universe look like?

/Ira

#2 Joad

Joad

    Wordsmith

  • *****
  • Posts: 18176
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2005

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:11 PM

Cleveland.

#3 Ira

Ira

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2655
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2010
  • Loc: Mitzpe Ramon, Israel

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:24 PM

I knew it couldn't be California.

/Ira

#4 Man in a Tub

Man in a Tub

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11402
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Fogpatch, CA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:38 AM

Rearranging to e=m/c^2

"The hurrier I go, the behinder I get." — Lewis Carroll

#5 Mister T

Mister T

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1330
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:09 AM

Did Otto put you up to that?
:shocked:

#6 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 20 November 2012 - 02:52 PM

Rearranging to e=m/c^2

"The hurrier I go, the behinder I get." — Lewis Carroll


Pesse (I think that would lead to a massive change in the Universe.) Mist

#7 Jarad

Jarad

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6389
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Atlanta, GA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:12 PM

Well, then stars would run out of fuel much faster, because mass would suddenly carry a lot less "bang for the buck", so to speak. C^4 less bang, to be exact....

Jarad

#8 FirstSight

FirstSight

    Duke of Deneb

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9977
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:27 PM

Cleveland.


Oh....noes! OK, it could be worse; it could look like Camden, NJ.

#9 FirstSight

FirstSight

    Duke of Deneb

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 9977
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2005
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:33 PM

Well, then stars would run out of fuel much faster, because mass would suddenly carry a lot less "bang for the buck", so to speak. C^4 less bang, to be exact....

Jarad


If so, the vast majority of primordial disks of gas and dust that have formed stars under e = mc^2 would not have enough energy to ignite the fusion process under m=ec^2 in the first place, and most of the mass which is now stars would instead be tied up in more massive versions of not-enough-for-prime time balls of gas like Jupiter.

#10 Man in a Tub

Man in a Tub

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11402
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Fogpatch, CA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:01 PM

If so, the vast majority of primordial disks of gas and dust that have formed stars under e = mc^2 would not have enough energy to ignite the fusion process under m=ec^2 in the first place, and most of the mass which is now stars would instead be tied up in more massive versions of not-enough-for-prime time balls of gas like Jupiter.


Thanks for the particulars which are beyond my skills! How could such a universe even originate and proceed from a "Big Bang"?

#11 StarWars

StarWars

    Mr. Postmaster Man

  • *****
  • Posts: 26872
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2003
  • Loc: At the Gym >Spudtastic<

Posted 20 November 2012 - 07:23 PM

Rearranging to e=m/c^2

"The hurrier I go, the behinder I get." — Lewis Carroll



Instead of the Big Bang it would of been the Big Twang... :step:

Attached Files



#12 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 22663
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:23 PM

Well, then stars would run out of fuel much faster, because mass would suddenly carry a lot less "bang for the buck", so to speak. C^4 less bang, to be exact....

Jarad


If so, the vast majority of primordial disks of gas and dust that have formed stars under e = mc^2 would not have enough energy to ignite the fusion process under m=ec^2 in the first place, and most of the mass which is now stars would instead be tied up in more massive versions of not-enough-for-prime time balls of gas like Jupiter.



It probably goes beyond that. I'm not sure that matter as we know it would even be able to exist under those conditions. Doesn't that relationship pervade all the forces of matter?

#13 Mister T

Mister T

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1330
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:36 AM

wouldn't it all depend on what it all started as?

if it began as e, then we would have a whole lot more m around.

stars would form sooner and get bigger, and would not fusion take place at the same star mass just produce less e

but if we started with m then we would have same stars producing less e , therefore getting much denser before going supernova or perhaps no supernovas because gravity would be able to counter act the reduced e and resulting in "slightly above average Novas"

or mediocrenovas ;)

#14 Jarad

Jarad

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6389
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:22 AM

I remember my freshman physics class, after we had studied our orbital mechanics, we walked in to the first test. It started out:

In our universe the equation for gravity is F = G*M1*M2/R^2. For this test, you will be calculating orbits in a universe where gravity is F = G*M1*M2*R.


I remember looking around and seeing the sweat popping out on everyone else's foreheads, too, as we realized we were going to have to re-derive all of the formulas we had memorized.

:tonofbricks:

Jarad

#15 Ken Kobayashi

Ken Kobayashi

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 347
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2007

Posted 21 November 2012 - 02:09 PM

Keep in mind that a physics formula doesn't deal with numbers, they deal with physical quantities with units. e=mc^2 works because energy has the unit of mass * distance^2 / time^2. A Joule equals kg*m^2/s^2.

In a world where e=m/c^2, energy would have the units of mass * time^2 / distance^2. I guess kinetic energy would be 1/2 m/v^2 - i.e. the smaller the speed, the larger the kinetic energy. I can't even begin to imagine what that universe looks like.

#16 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 21 November 2012 - 03:01 PM

Keep in mind that a physics formula doesn't deal with numbers, they deal with physical quantities with units. e=mc^2 works because energy has the unit of mass * distance^2 / time^2. A Joule equals kg*m^2/s^2.

In a world where e=m/c^2, energy would have the units of mass * time^2 / distance^2. I guess kinetic energy would be 1/2 m/v^2 - i.e. the smaller the speed, the larger the kinetic energy. I can't even begin to imagine what that universe looks like.


Pesse (Just tap it in. Just tap it in. Give it a little tappy. Tap Tap Taparoo.) Mist

#17 Jarad

Jarad

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6389
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2003
  • Loc: Atlanta, GA

Posted 21 November 2012 - 03:18 PM

The good news is it would take less gas to go fast than to go slow.

Does that mean that NASCAR in that universe would be a contest to see who can go the slowest around the track? :question:

Jarad

#18 EJN

EJN

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2005
  • Loc: 53 miles west of Venus

Posted 21 November 2012 - 03:24 PM

Atomic bombs would be firecrackers.

#19 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 21 November 2012 - 03:25 PM

E=MC^2 means that it takes a LOT of energy to fuse two atoms.

E=M/C^2 means it takes very LITTLE energy to fuse two atoms..bascially coming within smell distance of each other ought to do it.

No need for stars to run fusion reactions. Atoms will combine willy-nilly just bumping into each other where kinetic energy would overcome the strong nuclear force.

So after the Big Bang the quark soup would rapidly coalesce into hydrogen atoms which would then keep fusing until the process resulted in the most stable atomic arrangement possible.

Pesse (Basically the Universe would be one big block of lead.) Mist

#20 PhilCo126

PhilCo126

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3278
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2005
  • Loc: coastline of Belgium

Posted 21 November 2012 - 03:58 PM

Well, in fact the equilibrium inside stars (attractive gravity and central high pressure~temperature) means that energy has some "weight"
:imawake:

#21 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:20 PM

Well, in fact the equilibrium inside stars (attractive gravity and central high pressure~temperature) means that energy has some "weight"
:imawake:


My point was, all other things being equal, that fusion wouldn't require stars. In fact tiny grains would fuse..and fuse..and fuse again until you had lead.

You wouldn't need stars for this and all that lead would collapse down under its own weight since there would be no 'energy' pushing back.

A star is in equilibrium when the energy released during the fusion process exactly pushes back against the gravitational collapse.

When a star uses up all available fusion fuel then, depending on the mass of the star, it'll collapse down to a black hole or trigger a last hurrah known as a supernova which is the Universes way of puking out all the heavy elements.

Pesse (Sort of like a used up college student after an all weekend beer-bender) Mist

#22 Man in a Tub

Man in a Tub

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11402
  • Joined: 28 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Fogpatch, CA

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:11 PM

Could this universe originate with a "Big Ooze"?

#23 StarWars

StarWars

    Mr. Postmaster Man

  • *****
  • Posts: 26872
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2003
  • Loc: At the Gym >Spudtastic<

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:04 AM

Rearranging to e=m/c^2

"The hurrier I go, the behinder I get." — Lewis Carroll



I think the dinner table would still be graced with Tang and Twinkies... :woohoo:

Attached Files



#24 deSitter

deSitter

    Still in Old School

  • -----
  • Posts: 6879
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2004

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:55 AM

The good news is it would take less gas to go fast than to go slow.

Does that mean that NASCAR in that universe would be a contest to see who can go the slowest around the track? :question:

Jarad


If they put restrictor plates on the universe, I'm leaving. But you know how scientists are, all they want to see is bunching and crashing at horizons...

-drl

#25 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 26 November 2012 - 01:45 PM

The good news is it would take less gas to go fast than to go slow.

Does that mean that NASCAR in that universe would be a contest to see who can go the slowest around the track? :question:

Jarad


If they put restrictor plates on the universe, I'm leaving. But you know how scientists are, all they want to see is bunching and crashing at horizons...

-drl


Pesse (Well, without restrictor plates everyone would just sit there.) Mist






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics