Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: The energy



Of course we now get metaphysical here. If we really insist that both mass
and energy are just inventions--mental abstractions--then it would seem so
is the entire universe--ourselves included! ;-)

Rick

****************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
rtarara@saintmarys.edu

**********************************************************
FREE: Windows and Mac Instructional Software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
***********************************************************


[Original Message]
From: Jim Green <JMGreen@SISNA.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Date: 10/20/2004 1:26:52 AM
Subject: Re: The energy

At 15:42 19 10 2004 , the following was received:
Well... what exactly was the "big bang?" Was it not some sort of big
"conversion" of energy into matter and antimatter? If not, where did
the matter and antimatter come from?

Michael, please take Leigh's post to heart: Energy is not a substance --
It can not be "converted" -- Energy is an abstraction -- ie an
invention. It can be treated as a property of a system.

And what exactly does E=mc^2 mean? Doesn't it mean mass and energy are
equivalent?

But YES, mass and energy are equivalent. Both are inventions -- both
are
abstractions -- neither can flow independently -- both are properties of a
system.

But I still do not know how to determine the E or the m in E=mc^2.

And I don't know what was in Einstein's mind at the time.

Jim


Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen