more on Brian Greene: That Famous Equation and You

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Date: October 2, 2005 11:57:04 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: Ip Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Brian Greene: That Famous Equation and You


Dave:

Non-physicists ought not to pontificate on physics.   They end up  
looking foolish. [JUST LIKE PHYISICS NOBELS SHOULD NOT PONTIFICATE ON  
EVERY THING ELSE :-) DJF]

Standard relativity theory, as invented by Einstein, asserts that  
mass and energy are equivalent, and that E=mc^2 merely describes the  
equivalence.

To talk about "conversion" in a relativistic model is absurd.   There  
is no "conversion" - mass is energy, energy is mass.   They are just  
two views of the same thing.

The distinction only becomes possible when one is trying to describe  
how one corrects classical physical descriptions (in which mass and  
energy are distinct) to explain violations of the conservation of  
energy and conservation of mass, which are unified in relativity  
theories, so there is a single conservation law.

Classical dynamics is what most engineers use, and it is quite  
useful, so we don't teach children that mass and energy are the same  
thing.   But perhaps we should, now that 100 years of testing suggest  
that relativity theory is a much more apt description than classical  
theories that treat mass and energy as distinct.

"mass-energy conversion" is like the "epicycles" needed to explain  
the trajectories of planets in a model where orbits are presumed  
circular rather than elliptical.


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/