You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What does E=MC2 really mean?
Thanks for this @williambanks!
Upvoted and followed!
One question that always struck me from the first time I started breaking this formula apart in Physics was in regards to the sums of the equation .. for instance:
sum.Energy = sum.Mass * speed.Light ^ 2
If its true on the singular instance, I reasoned it should be the same universally. But, since the universe is accelerating, there should be a corresponding increase of mass on the other side of the equation since light speed is a constant.
Is this too much of a gross oversimplification?
@blakemiles84
Well here we have firmly entered the world of spherical cows in a vacuum.
In order to prevent the Universe from collapsing, Einstein added an adhoc term to his original paper on General Relativity.
This term was called Lambda
He added this but when Hubble published his results indicating the Universe was expanding, Einstein retracted it calling it his greatest blunder.
This term is literally the vacuum energy constant of the Universe and right now, whatever it is it seems to be the dominant form of energy in the universe.
There are as many theories about what the hell this is, as there are people thinking about it.
We know it only by it's effects.
It's not pushing things in the Universe further apart, it is the Universe stretching in regions of low mass while gravity dominates in regions of higher mass.
One theory and it's the one that I subscribe to for no other reason than all the cool kids are doing it is this...
The the smallest scales the Universe can be thought of as "foamy". In this quantum foam, a lot of activity is happening, including virtual particles popping in and out of existence. Literally anything but most common would be charged particles which then instantly annhiliate eachother.
This annihilation leaves residual energy in it's wake. The energy doesn't last for long, but it stretches the universe out just a little more. When that occurs, there is suddenly a little more space for these events to occur in, so they occur more frequently. This feeds a cycle and there you are.
I don't find this satisfying, but it is exactly the same process as hawking radiation and it satisfies my inner urge to discretize the universe at the scale of quantum foam.
I have serious doubts that this constant is actually constant.
There is a competing theory which has almost no traction or support, but which states that what we perceive as accelerated expansion is the evolution of time into a space like dimension and space into a time like dimension. The result of dimensional folding. This one satisfies my urge to say that time in general is not constant and instead has a certain fluidity to it, that I don't have an appropriate term or the ability to describe at the moment.
This would actually be a great question for @lemouth since he actually is a Quantum Physicist and is probably much more up to date on what the science is telling us in this regard.
Excellent response. @lemouth -- would love to read that! Following you both, now.
I hadn't heard of the 'quantum foam' concept, but I think I can visualize it.
One theory that I've read that resonates is gravity as an omni-directional, collisionless pushing force that gives all matter, particles, and anything its spin. According to this theory, the pull towards bodies of mass is a result of the dense formations of matter 'slowing down' or 'squeezing' the 'gravitational pushing force' slower than where it is coming from any other direction.
So, how this ties in, when the gravity force is hitting the edge of the universe, its spinning matter into existence when it reaches the whatever nothingness (or literally no thing) beyond the edge of time and space. This would account for the accelerating expansion AND the increase of mass to Einsteins equation.
There are some other very interesting components to this theory as well. The pushing force is what gives light its waves and particles signature, but also its 'speed limit', since light is flowing within a stream of gravity like a leaf down a river.
I can't honestly remember where the hell I read that, but I liked it. I'm not trained in physics beyond undergrad stuff, so I'm sure there are a number of things wrong with it. However, it resonated and it helped me to understand a number of concepts much easier in physics.
@blakemiles84 im sorry but i didnt see a response from @lemouth on it so im not sure what explanation youre referring to. As for my own, The quantum foam theory is one of those that a number of years ago gained a lot of traction but has been dying down as of late.