Saturday, November 15, 2014

E = mc2

The most famous equation in this Universe and all Universes, known or unknown. What is the physical interpretation of Al's equation? Or should I say De Pretto's equation? There once lived an obscure Italian industrialist/engineer who derived and marveled over "Einstein's" equation a couple of years before Al's so called annus mirabilis. His full name is Olinto De Pretto. He wrote an article translated "Hypothesis of Aether in the Life of the Universe" published in 1903 where he derived and played with the famous E = mc2; using the symbol v to represent velocity of light instead of c. This he did independent of general relativity. Few if anyone give De Pretto a nod of credit.  But this is for another discussion. (here is a link to his original Italian article where one can see E = mv2 used more than a few times).

What is E = mc2 physical significance? To me it is a boring and forgettable equation that is way overrated. This is forgettable compared to the 'magic' of some other equations like Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics, or the math expression of the fine structure constant. How do I interpret this equation? It is a top-down equation. It describes nothing about the fundamental nature or constitution of matter. This is implied in the equation or read into it. One need understand the fundamental constitution and relation of matter first, before one can interpret the same in this equation.

Also, E = mc2 does not imply that energy is converted into matter. This is nonsense. A concept (energy) cannot change into an object or a set of objects (matter)

Definitions & Reflections

E refers to an object's capacity to do work, specifically the mode of work we call light, or radiation which is performed by atoms and all objects comprised of atoms.

m refers to an object's inertial mass.

velocity of light squared refers to all atoms of the Universe constantly sending and receiving light signals to and from all atoms via an object, that has form, supposedly exists and serves as a nexus and constituent of all atoms.

E = mc2 is a sort of static potential equation. It is a general principle equation. It states the obvious once one understands the constitution of matter. There is no real magic here.

Following Gaede's physics, I see that the profundity of the equation lies in the physical interpretation of inertial mass which is perhaps implied but not explained in this equation. Inertial mass refers to an object's resistance to being pushed or pulled by objects in the vicinity. The object's resistance is rooted in all atoms of the Universe performing a constant tension upon that object via a fundamental and intrinsic mediator connecting all atoms, which I might add are in perpetual motion (rest mass is fictitious). The tension is bi-directional. A sort of nudging of atoms by all atoms from all directions in all directions NOT hook line and sinker. This interaction between all atoms is worked by all atoms in the dynamic concept we call light or radiation.

This is Mach's principle to the max. When a star moves its pulls on you. When you move your little pinkie finger . . . you pull on all the stars. When a lone hydrogen atom moves it pulls on all the stars . . . and all stellar atoms pull on it. All atoms are in perpetual motion so there is no end to this tugging. The tension needed to mediate this tug o war is sustained by the atom's work of light mediated by that rectilinear 3D nexus connecting and constituting the same atoms. This nexus is assumed to be a continuous two stranded Thread that is DNA like. Atoms are critically dense matrices of this same Thread.  But back to the point . . . this is why m is related to c2 in the equation. For those who have eyes to see it inertial mass is inseparable from the work of light performed by atoms and the invisible nexus intrinsically connecting all atoms. The relation is simple and profound. C2 refers to an atomic work that is always done, light. So the Energy in the left side of the equation must imply capacity to do the work of light. All E does is calculate an object's capacity to do the work of light, specifically receive and send off light signals.

Furthermore, t
he velocity of light is significant in that if light signals happened to communicate between atoms at a greater velocity all objects would have a greater inertial mass, and gravitational potential would be greater for the entire network of matter or conceptual Universe.

What is interesting is that the more resistance an object has to being pushed or pulled is proportional to that object's capacity to do the work of light. So a hydrogen atom has a certain inertial mass that is equivalent to its capacity to perform light. A hydrogen atom's inertial mass is less then that of a star. Obviously a star has more capacity for light as one can imagine it is sending out and receiving more light signals than a lone hydrogen atom. So an increase in inertial mass multiplies the amount of light signals an object absorbs and emits, which implies that there are more fundamental connections to all atoms of the Universe in that object. Where else would a light signal go other than to or from an atom? However the payoff for increased light capacity is that it will take more work to push or pull on that object.

A hydrogen atom has less capacity to do light work than cesium atom because it has less permanent as well as potential connections to all the atoms of the Universe. A cesium atom on the other hand has greater capacity to do light work because it has more permanent and potential connections to all the atoms of the Universe.

When work is done to an atom does it ever lose a little inertial mass? I suppose that is possible. Say we send in a neutron and fission a U-235 isotope. They say that after the nuclear reaction the whole system may have lost a little mass. Perhaps this inertial mass was locked up in some temporary critical electron thread densities established in the isotope that participated in light phenomenon, but after fission were dissolved. But essentially the products end up having less inertial mass than the mother isotope because they have less inherent connection to all other atoms in the Universe. And they have less capacity to do the work of light.  However all of the mediators were already present in the fission and simply let go of by the atoms.

E = mc2 has nothing to do with nuclear bombs or nuclear potential energy. This is urban legend, Time magazine b.s. pop/mainstream science or Wikipedia stuff. Nuclear potential energy is distinct from Energy in Al's equation. Nuclear potential energy is locked up in the nucleons extremely close proximity. On the other hand Al's or de Pretto's E = mc2 implies is that certain atoms or objects have more or less potential to complete light phenomenon via a nexus which also serves to maintain inertial mass relation. In nuclear reactions Nature does not literally inject energy or release energy into and out of the system of atoms nor does it lose or gain mass. In a fission an object called a neutron works to break the nuclear bonds and there will be extreme replusions, nuclear and electric mediated by the atoms which in turn will work light, work each other kinetically and ultimately all atoms in the blast radius. In a fusion, atoms or objects such as electron threads or magnetic threads work to crush together say two hydrogen atoms which at a certain distance and in certain circumstances (perhaps in the presence of neutrons) fuse.

Even though an atom, absorbing or emitting light signals may vary it's inertial mass a teenie tiny little because of the dynamics of electrons but E = mc2 implies a relation that is more simple and profound for those who have eyes to see it.

E = mc2 implies a profound physical relation subsuming all atoms of the Universe.  In objects, beginning with the hydrogen atom and ending in the greatest superstar, inertial mass is inseparable from the work of light performed by atoms on the passive mediators of light intrinsically connecting all atoms.  The totality of this work which never ends is abstracted and symbolically represented by E on the left side of Al's or De Pretto's equation.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.