e=mc2: 103 years later, Einstein's proven right
Thu Nov 20, 6:56 pm ET

PARIS (AFP) – It's taken more than a century, but Einstein's celebrated
formula e=mc2 has finally been corroborated, thanks to a heroic
computational effort by French, German and Hungarian physicists.

A brainpower consortium led by Laurent Lellouch of France's Centre for
Theoretical Physics, using some of the world's mightiest supercomputers,
have set down the calculations for estimating the mass of protons and
neutrons, the particles at the nucleus of atoms.

According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and
neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are
bound by gluons.

The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks
is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent?

The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science
on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions
of quarks and gluons.

In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in
his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.

The e=mc2 formula shows that mass can be converted into energy, and
energy can be converted into mass.

By showing how much energy would be released if a certain amount of mass
were to be converted into energy, the equation has been used many times,
most famously as the inspirational basis for building atomic weapons.

But resolving e=mc2 at the scale of sub-atomic particles -- in equations
called quantum chromodynamics -- has been fiendishly difficult.

"Until now, this has been a hypothesis," France's National Centre for
Scientific Research (CNRS) said proudly in a press release.

"It has now been corroborated for the first time."

For those keen to know mo the computations involve "envisioning space
and time as part of a four-dimensional crystal lattice, with discrete
points spaced along columns and rows."

- - -

Fortunately for Einstein, he never visited rec.boats and read the
oozings of Herring, Loogy, DK, ThreeWhiteSheets, or Florida Jim.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:35:43 -0500, Boater wrote:

Pustules wake you this morning? Hummm?

Sorry about that.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"

On Nov 25, 6:35*am, Boater wrote:
e=mc2: 103 years later, Einstein's proven right
Thu Nov 20, 6:56 pm ET

PARIS (AFP) – It's taken more than a century, but Einstein's celebrated
formula e=mc2 has finally been corroborated, thanks to a heroic
computational effort by French, German and Hungarian physicists.

A brainpower consortium led by Laurent Lellouch of France's Centre for
Theoretical Physics, using some of the world's mightiest supercomputers,
have set down the calculations for estimating the mass of protons and
neutrons, the particles at the nucleus of atoms.

According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and
neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are
bound by gluons.

The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks
is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent?

The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science
on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions
of quarks and gluons.

In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in
his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.

The e=mc2 formula shows that mass can be converted into energy, and
energy can be converted into mass.

By showing how much energy would be released if a certain amount of mass
were to be converted into energy, the equation has been used many times,
most famously as the inspirational basis for building atomic weapons.

But resolving e=mc2 at the scale of sub-atomic particles -- in equations
called quantum chromodynamics -- has been fiendishly difficult.

"Until now, this has been a hypothesis," France's National Centre for
Scientific Research (CNRS) said proudly in a press release.

"It has now been corroborated for the first time."

For those keen to know mo the computations involve "envisioning space
and time as part of a four-dimensional crystal lattice, with discrete
points spaced along columns and rows."

- - -

Fortunately for Einstein, he never visited rec.boats and read the
oozings of Herring, Loogy, DK, ThreeWhiteSheets, or Florida Jim.

Harry, I understand more about Einstein's theories than you ever will.
All you did is google and paste. Any little kid can do that.

On Nov 25, 7:19*am, JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:35:43 -0500, Boater wrote:

Pustules wake you this morning? Hummm?

Sorry about that.
--
A Harry Krause truism:

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"

I love it. Harry thinks he's just brilliant because he cut and pasted
a scientific article!

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:35:43 -0500, Boater
wrote:

In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in
his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.

Which is true as far as it goes. In this universe anyway.

There have been recent experiments that prove we may live in more than
one universe and up to as many as six at the same time.

Einstein never accounted for those rules. :)

On Nov 25, 11:35*am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:35:43 -0500, Boater
wrote:

In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in
his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.

Which is true as far as it goes. *In this universe anyway.

There have been recent experiments that prove we may live in more than
one universe and up to as many as six at the same time.

Einstein never accounted for those rules. *:)

Bingo!! Give that man a big fat ceeegar!

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:35:43 -0500, Boater
wrote:

In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in
his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.

Which is true as far as it goes. In this universe anyway.

There have been recent experiments that prove we may live in more than
one universe and up to as many as six at the same time.

Einstein never accounted for those rules. :)

I think Quantum Mechanics says there are an infinite number of universes.

The fact that Einstein General Theory of Relativity does not agree with
QM's is the reason physicists are looking for a Unified theory that
would work on the grand scale and the atomic scale.

I know the answer, but i am not telling.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:52:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:35:43 -0500, Boater
wrote:

In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in
his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.

Which is true as far as it goes. In this universe anyway.

There have been recent experiments that prove we may live in more than
one universe and up to as many as six at the same time.

Einstein never accounted for those rules. :)

I think Quantum Mechanics says there are an infinite number of universes.

The fact that Einstein General Theory of Relativity does not agree with
QM's is the reason physicists are looking for a Unified theory that
would work on the grand scale and the atomic scale.

I know the answer, but i am not telling.

Newtonian physics exists in a two dimensional world - what Einstein
did was extend Newtonian physics into three dimensions the third being
time. In the Newtonian world, the laws were considered the same at
any reference point in terms of time - it takes X time for Object A to
travel to Object B or to put it another way, time is the same for all
observers of an event no matter at which end of the observational
platform one is observing from. Einstein proved that in fact,
observers will and can experience time dilation depending on where the
event is being observed from (think Doppler Shift) and a couple of
other interesting effects such as length contraction and simultaneous
relatively.

Einstein didn't account for the possibility that instead of living in
a three dimensional universe, we may actually live in a
muti-dimensional universe. There have been several published
experiments in which particles have been in two places at the same
time and one of the more interesting ones, which has been duplicated,
the particle appeared at it's destination before it left it's origin
point.

This would seem to indicate that there are more universes operating
under more than Newtonian/Einsteinian laws than thought.

Next time you want to ponder the universe, ponder this. Wormholes are
theoritically possible -given enough power that is. It's pretty much
strictly an engineering problem, not a problem with the theory.

So, let's say you want to establish a worm hole from your living room
to a high plateau on Omicron Persei 8 - a distance of one million
light years.

Now think about this - once the worm hole is established and you look
through it, are you looking at the future or at the past?

I'll wait. :)

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:52:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:35:43 -0500, Boater
wrote:

In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in
his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.
Which is true as far as it goes. In this universe anyway.

There have been recent experiments that prove we may live in more than
one universe and up to as many as six at the same time.

Einstein never accounted for those rules. :)
I think Quantum Mechanics says there are an infinite number of universes.

The fact that Einstein General Theory of Relativity does not agree with
QM's is the reason physicists are looking for a Unified theory that
would work on the grand scale and the atomic scale.

I know the answer, but i am not telling.

Newtonian physics exists in a two dimensional world - what Einstein
did was extend Newtonian physics into three dimensions the third being
time. In the Newtonian world, the laws were considered the same at
any reference point in terms of time - it takes X time for Object A to
travel to Object B or to put it another way, time is the same for all
observers of an event no matter at which end of the observational
platform one is observing from. Einstein proved that in fact,
observers will and can experience time dilation depending on where the
event is being observed from (think Doppler Shift) and a couple of
other interesting effects such as length contraction and simultaneous
relatively.

Einstein didn't account for the possibility that instead of living in
a three dimensional universe, we may actually live in a
muti-dimensional universe. There have been several published
experiments in which particles have been in two places at the same
time and one of the more interesting ones, which has been duplicated,
the particle appeared at it's destination before it left it's origin
point.

This would seem to indicate that there are more universes operating
under more than Newtonian/Einsteinian laws than thought.

Next time you want to ponder the universe, ponder this. Wormholes are
theoritically possible -given enough power that is. It's pretty much
strictly an engineering problem, not a problem with the theory.

So, let's say you want to establish a worm hole from your living room
to a high plateau on Omicron Persei 8 - a distance of one million
light years.

Now think about this - once the worm hole is established and you look
through it, are you looking at the future or at the past?

I'll wait. :)

I think you are trying to fool me.

If you have bent the time/space continuum to form the wormhole, you
would be looking at the present.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:59:35 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:52:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:35:43 -0500, Boater
wrote:

In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in
his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.
Which is true as far as it goes. In this universe anyway.

There have been recent experiments that prove we may live in more than
one universe and up to as many as six at the same time.

Einstein never accounted for those rules. :)
I think Quantum Mechanics says there are an infinite number of universes.

The fact that Einstein General Theory of Relativity does not agree with
QM's is the reason physicists are looking for a Unified theory that
would work on the grand scale and the atomic scale.

I know the answer, but i am not telling.

Newtonian physics exists in a two dimensional world - what Einstein
did was extend Newtonian physics into three dimensions the third being
time. In the Newtonian world, the laws were considered the same at
any reference point in terms of time - it takes X time for Object A to
travel to Object B or to put it another way, time is the same for all
observers of an event no matter at which end of the observational
platform one is observing from. Einstein proved that in fact,
observers will and can experience time dilation depending on where the
event is being observed from (think Doppler Shift) and a couple of
other interesting effects such as length contraction and simultaneous
relatively.

Einstein didn't account for the possibility that instead of living in
a three dimensional universe, we may actually live in a
muti-dimensional universe. There have been several published
experiments in which particles have been in two places at the same
time and one of the more interesting ones, which has been duplicated,
the particle appeared at it's destination before it left it's origin
point.

This would seem to indicate that there are more universes operating
under more than Newtonian/Einsteinian laws than thought.

Next time you want to ponder the universe, ponder this. Wormholes are
theoritically possible -given enough power that is. It's pretty much
strictly an engineering problem, not a problem with the theory.

So, let's say you want to establish a worm hole from your living room
to a high plateau on Omicron Persei 8 - a distance of one million
light years.

Now think about this - once the worm hole is established and you look
through it, are you looking at the future or at the past?

I'll wait. :)

I think you are trying to fool me.

If you have bent the time/space continuum to form the wormhole, you
would be looking at the present.

You'd think so wouldn't you?

Guess again. :)