Also E=mc^2 is the low-momentum approximation, the full equation is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 where p is the relativistic momentum. Gravity and quantum mechanics can alter the results given by special relativity.

Also E=mc^2 is the low-momentum approximation, the full equation is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 where p is the relativistic momentum. Gravity and quantum mechanics can alter the results given by special relativity.

very nice Hans

This equation E=mc^2 is the equation for mass to energy conversion. In the right hand side Mass (m) is there and Energy (E) in the left hand side of the equation. Another constant C (velocity of light in vacuum / air) is there. So in microscopic world it is more important than that of macroscopic world. Basically it is more applicable to nuclear energy conversion.

The primary reason why attempts to define "A Theory of Everything" have been unsuccessful has nothing to do with the equation E=mc^2 or the velolcity of light. It is due to the fact that there exists an incompatibility between the microscopic universe described by quantum mechanics and the macroscopic one described by Einstein's theories.

Einstein's theories define the macroscopic universe in terms of the existence of a continuous space-time metric while quantum theories define the microscopic world of particles in terms of discontinuous particles. Therefore, these two theories are inherently incompatible because the universe cannot be both continuous and discontinuous at the same time. The only way one can combine them is by either defining the background dependent quantum properties of energy/mass in terms of background independent properties of a continuous space-time metric or vice versa.

We think one can resolve this by redefining the unverse in terms of only four spaital dimensions instead of four dimensioanal space time. Please take a few minutes to review the publicaiton "The Reality of the Fourth Spaital Dimension" in my profile for a detailed description of how this can be accomplished

Thanks

Well, that is one vote.

In Unit Field theory, particles are special bounded states of continuous fields, which in turn are bounded by Space-Time. Space-Time becomes continuous, as a result of interactions between continuous fields, and becomes discontinuous as a result of boundaries between locally complex dimensional structures.

In other words the problem is that we do not have enough dimensions to describe the Universe, and that Physics has been too long overshadowed by Particle physics, and so assumes particles and 4 dimensions, even where perhaps it shouldn't.

$$ E = {\gamma}^{2}{{m}_{0}}^{2} {c}_{0}^{2} \left( {c}_{0}^{2}+{v}^{2} \right) $$

E=mc^2 is the rest mass energy, considering a zero momentum. So, it gives the energy of a particle in the rest frame of the particle alone.

The full relativistic version of E=mc2 must be used when it's applied to anything in the universe but not when it's applied to the universe itself. In that case, E=mc2 by itself is valid. The relativistic parts of the experession disappear because the universe is everything that there is. Since there's nothing else for a characteristic of the universe to be related to, the concept of relativity is meaningless.

I don't believe zero momentum exists either because the universe is expanding.

Indeed. I would challenge anyone to find something static within the universe.

What if particles are not particles at all, but merely standing effects of quantum states?

Quantum states of the decompositions of any system are what remain always with viable entanglement expressions

Massimo, that would make sense if energy and spacetime were quantized at the deepest level of reality. But what if they're continuous? Without the need for quantum field theory at that level, doesn't the need for an observer disappear? If so, wouldn't it be possible for the universe as a whole to have energy? And since nothing's relative for the entire universe because there's nothing else to relate do, I think the amount of energy in the universe would be fixed since energy is conserved.

E=M c^2 is a result of the theory of special relativity. However it was immediately applied to nuclear physics and proved quite successful. Actually both of these are human scale applications. At the very small scale ( i am not sure where the scale boundary lies), quantum fluctuations may make the equation imprecise. At the very large scales it may be impossible to test because we are unable to do experiments or observations on the entire universe. Also the discovery of accelerating expansion of the universe and the ill defined "dark energy" used to give it a name has called into question the extension of human scale observations to the entire universe. In conclusion. I don't know. That means the question was a good one. Oh yes, I might be wrong.

Me too.

David and Massimo

A wave on water travels along the surface at velocity defined by that medium until it slows down when approaching the shore. Its energy then becomes concentrated in a breaker. Similarly a wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would travel along it at a velocity defined by that medium. However, similar to a wave on water its energy will be concentrated when it slows down.

This is why all of the particles such as photons or xray that move at the speed of a four dimensional medium or the speed of light do not have mass because all its energy is contained in its wave format. However the wave energy of any that are not moving at the speed of light will be concentrated in what is called mass.

So yes I quess one could say that "Energy and mass are interchangeable in a wave."

Thank you Jeffrey. That is also the way I see it, only basing it on an EMF wave

THIS is low of impotrnt for physics.this low of hundred % succesfuliy pass for astronomy&physics.but ther are very hard lows.i follow this newtons low.i like newton.

Milan, "the whole universe" does have meaning for me. In quantum physics terms, it means all of the quantum particles that exist both in the part of the universe that we can observe and in the part that we can't. I assume there's a fundamental level of reality below the scale of quantum physics in which the only real things are energy, space and time. That's the same assumption that's made in string theory. In those terms, "the whole universe" means all of the space-time that was created at the time of the big bang and has evolved since then. When I asked if E=mc squared is applicable to "all space time scales" I was wondering if the equation must be true in every region of space from the very smallest ( the Planck scale) to the very largest (the whole universe) at all times including the past, the present and the future.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between "my whole universe" and "the whole universe". Can you elaborate?

Don't feel alone Bill.....

I think differently I guess. I see all the rules, and find exceptions to them. I see no reason why this isn't the same. otherwise we would have TOE already, and while we think we may be close, we don't. So the trick it seems to me is finding the exception.

David, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What rules do you mean? What do we need to find an exception to?

Why your question of course. Is E=MC2 a universal constant? I say no, it isn't. I say there is an exception. And finding the exception is the key.

I believe that Einstein's crucial assumptions that the speed of light is the same for all observers and that nothing can move faster than that speed are right. But I also believe that the speed of light must change over time. If and when the results of the OPERA experiment are confirmed, in my opinion it will provide experimental confirmation of all of those things. The correct interpretation of the results will be that the speed of light itself is increasing and that the neutrinos are not moving faster than that increased speed limit. When you apply the equation to the universe and interpret c as the speed of its expansion, c must change. In fact, during inflation the expansion speed increased dramatically and rapidly slowed down as mass was being created and the ratio of mass to energy in the universe was changing rapidly. That explains the force of dark energy. And when you apply the equation to a region of space in the universe and interpret c as the speed of light, the constraint imposed on the evolution of spacetime in that region in order for the equation to be true results in the observed additional gravitational field caused by dark matter. That's the gist of my theory and it makes sense to me because everything falls into place. But, of course, it may be wrong.

I am watching OPERA closely as well. It will be interesting to see what they find. I would like to know what space is. I believe it acts like a fabric of sorts. The question is, if space is a fabric, does it effect C.....

In my view, space is certainly a fabric that can be stretched, twisted, curved, etc. According to general relativity the warping of space IS the gravitational field. Since c is calculated by dividing distance in space by time and distance in space is affected by how it's warped (in other words by its shape) and time can either be sped up or slowed down by changes in position in a gravitational field (or by movement in space), it seems to me that changes in spacetime MUST affect c. If c changes, which I think it does, and the only really real things in the universe are energy, space and time, I'm at a loss to think of anything else other than changes in spacetime that could affect c. When I think of the universe and everything in it, I think of energy fluctuating in a mutual dance with spacetime. At the deepest level of reality that's all there is.

Precisely! We agree totally.

I done some consideration.

Einstein's equations have a sense only if exist an observer able to measure the universe, but, if we want to describe the universe as a whole an external observer doesn't exist.

If we assume alternatively the existence of a Laboratory inside the universe, for example a satelite placed in L2 able to observe and measure the masses in the deep space, in this case the sum of all energy observed in the Lab position is

Eu = SUM( Ei )

To estimate Eu we define Ei as the ordinary energy at rest of each i-th galaxy or cluster observed means of its redshft seen by the Lab:

- BETAi = Vi/c is the relative velocity of a body obtained from the redshift.

- Egi is the energy obtained by luminosity measures of galaxies

Using Bridge Theory in which Eg , the energy measured by an observer of a photon is linked to Ei , the real energy of the source which has emitted the photon as

Eg = Ei/2 * sqr[ (1-BETA^2) ] / [ 1-BETA*cos(teta) ] , (Ref. arXiv:1003.3861)

considering that sources move away from the Lab, they suffer a Doppler effect along a line of view with an angle of observation teta = 0.

So the rest energy Ei of each object is

Ei = 2*Egi * sqr[ (1-BETAi)/(1+BETAi) ]

In conclusion Eu = 2*SUM( Egi * sqr[ (1-BETAi)/(1+BETAi) ] ), so the mass at rest of the universe, excluding the mass Lab, is Mu = Eu /c^2 that is different to assume Eu = Mu * c^2, i.e. the inverse, because Mu is not directly observable. Obviously in these considerations the dark energy and the dark mass are not considered.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.3861

Your comment is helpful, Farhad and I appreciate it. As you say, general relativity says that E=mc^2+p^2*c^2 varies due to the curved background of spacetime, meaning that it varies in a gravitational field. At the deepest level of reality at the Planck scale, I believe spacetime is continuous so in reality there are no quantum effects. Try to imagine that that's true and, if it is, do you think the speed of light can change? My thinking is based on an assumption that it does and energy is conserved. Does that make any sense to you?

William, you can download my paper from my website at www.laporte-bryan.com. If you read it, I'd like to get your thoughts and comments about it.

Bill, the answer is yes.

The energy –mass equation Is an equation of equivalence which mean that any massive object is equivalent to a massless one, but the equivalent objects are not the same object. For example the photon is a massless particle but it is equivalent to a massive one and this equivalence holds everywhere , it is observer independent.