RE: What does E=MC2 really mean?
@lemouth Fair enough, all generalizations are of course going to be faulty.
You're correct of course.
But what I mean by "property" in this context, is that it is something you need to account for when thinking about object = energy.
Let me put it another way.
When you think about a coin (energy), there are heads and tails.
And that's all anyone ever thinks about.
In reality the coin has 3 properties, heads(potential), tails(kinetic), edge(binding) (not going to get started here on spin etc).
Coin as energy, this is what I mean by properties. A better more accurate description would be the collective excitation states of the various fields involved. But this felt like a good way to break frame and it's accurate enough to get people 99% of the way to the most correct answer, beyond which it can get really complicated. :D
Thanks for your comments!
Sure. If you start to be too accurate you will loose everybody. I was only trying to be in the middle (without offensing you of course) :p
@lemouth Nope you'll never offend me by providing corrected information.
Especially if you can cite a peer reviewed reputable source for it.
Remember, this place has real Quantum Physicists, Theoretical Physicists, Mathematicians and even arm chair quarterbacking polyglot nerds like me.
I think we can do an ELI5 on it and get more minds intrigued and excited. While at the same time keeping some solid standards of rigeur.
@lemouth Cool! Sounds excellent! We really do need more people who spend their lives doing this.
Great to meet you!
In this case, I think that confirmation can be found in many quantum mechanics textbooks (I however cannot point you to a given one and a given page number right now as I don't have them with me).
Btw, this is exactly how I introduced the microscopic world to my students when I had to lecture quantum mechanics. That's actually part of my lecture #1 where I mix the scope of quantum mechanics, some description of the microscopic world and some history of science.
@lemouth Oh yeah. Sorry I wasn't saying you needed to cite something that's common knowledge. I was saying I have a tendency to parrot things I've learned once I've learned them. However the scientific world moves so quickly that entire fields of study can crop up, take over the world and then be found to have no basis in reality faster than I can ever hope to keep up.
Hence if I'm wrong especially about something edgy or "wooish". I love knowing as soon as possible. If that information comes from peer reviewed articles, then that's even better.
So remind me, what do you teach again? Because I have some QM stuff that I'm not sure if it's woo or bs, or accepted and valid fact. But whatever it is it's fascinating and got my attention like a bloodhound on a scent.
Eitherway I don't have an audience before I present it and if you have the background for it, I would love to have a sanity check before I run with it much further.
I am answering here as I cannot answer to your answer. During the last ten years, I designed lectures on quantum mechanics, particle physics, the electroweak theory, wave mechanics, electromagnetism, high-energy physics tools, supersymmetry, etc.
My main field of expertise is actually theoretical particle physics.