Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

What if m=ec^2?

Started by Ira , Nov 19 2012 06:14 PM

Next

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

27 replies to this topic

#1 Ira

Mercury-Atlas

topic starter

Posts: 2,992
Joined: 22 Aug 2010

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

Back to top

#2 Joad

Wordsmith

Posts: 19,001
Joined: 22 Mar 2005

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:11 PM

Cleveland.

Back to top

#3 Ira

Mercury-Atlas

topic starter

Posts: 2,992
Joined: 22 Aug 2010

Posted 19 November 2012 - 09:24 PM

I knew it couldn't be California.

/Ira

Back to top

#4 Man in a Tub

James Webb Space Telescope

Posts: 16,741
Joined: 28 Oct 2008

Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:38 AM

Rearranging to e=m/c^2

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

Back to top

#5 Mister T

Vanguard

Posts: 2,207
Joined: 01 Feb 2008

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:09 AM

Did Otto put you up to that?
:shocked:

Back to top

#6 Pess

(Title)

Posts: 3,942
Joined: 12 Sep 2007

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

Back to top

#7 Jarad

Fly Me to the Moon

Posts: 6,460
Joined: 28 Apr 2003

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

Back to top

#8 FirstSight

Duke of Deneb

Posts: 17,376
Joined: 26 Dec 2005

Posted 20 November 2012 - 04:27 PM

Cleveland.

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

Back to top

#9 FirstSight

Duke of Deneb

Posts: 17,376
Joined: 26 Dec 2005

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.

Back to top

#10 Man in a Tub

James Webb Space Telescope

Posts: 16,741
Joined: 28 Oct 2008

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"?

Back to top

#11 StarWars

Mr. Postmaster Man

Posts: 34,064
Joined: 26 Nov 2003

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 Thumbnails

Back to top

#12 llanitedave

Humble Megalomaniac

Posts: 31,316
Joined: 25 Sep 2005

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?

Back to top

#13 Mister T

Vanguard

Posts: 2,207
Joined: 01 Feb 2008

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

Back to top

#14 Jarad

Fly Me to the Moon

Posts: 6,460
Joined: 28 Apr 2003

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

Back to top

#15 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.

Back to top

#16 Pess

(Title)

Posts: 3,942
Joined: 12 Sep 2007

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

Back to top

#17 Jarad

Fly Me to the Moon

Posts: 6,460
Joined: 28 Apr 2003

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

Back to top

#18 Pess

(Title)

Posts: 3,942
Joined: 12 Sep 2007

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

Back to top

#19 PhilCo126

Soyuz

Posts: 3,858
Joined: 14 Jan 2005

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:

Back to top

#20 Pess

(Title)

Posts: 3,942
Joined: 12 Sep 2007

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"

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

Back to top

#21 Man in a Tub

James Webb Space Telescope

Posts: 16,741
Joined: 28 Oct 2008

Posted 21 November 2012 - 11:11 PM

Could this universe originate with a "Big Ooze"?

Back to top

#22 StarWars

Mr. Postmaster Man

Posts: 34,064
Joined: 26 Nov 2003

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 Thumbnails

Back to top

#23 deSitter

Still in Old School

Posts: 17,525
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?

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

Back to top

#24 Pess

(Title)

Posts: 3,942
Joined: 12 Sep 2007

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?

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