[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 65 KB, 425x307, einstein_e_mc2formula.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5516960 No.5516960 [Reply] [Original]

I was learning about special relativity the other day and I was wondering,

Why was Einstein and the equation <span class="math">E=mc^2[/spoiler] so revolutionary to science?

Why was it him that changed the world?

>> No.5516963

When you've actually learned something then you won't need us to answer your retard-tier questions.

Get a book, read it, then get another.

>> No.5516974

>>5516963
I was hoping to have an interesting discussion on /sci/ about infamous scientists and their ability to change science

>> No.5516976

From a physical or mathematical point of view Einstein's theory is rather trivial. Both SR and GR can be understood with high school math knowledge and the step from classical mechanics to relativity is pretty small. Einstein's theories weren't scientifically revolutionary and were mostly based on other people's works. Socially however their consequences cannot be ignored. The insight that "everything is relative" had huge impact on modern feminism and gender studies. Einstein fundamentally changed our conception of social identity.

>> No.5516982

>>5516974
what the fuck am i reading

>> No.5516988

>>5516976
9.5/10, I was raging hard until I read the scoial crap. OP, this is bullshit. Einstein was a big deal because he
1/ Established a new gravitationnal paradigm
2/ Proved the existence of atoms
Two very different; very important things, from the same guy. The famous equation itself is not that revolutionnary, it is in the general frame of the global theory.

>> No.5517058

>>5516960
Showing that "E=mc^2" wasn't all that Einstein did. The reason why the equation was revolutionary and is important to us though is because it says that mass equals energy which is something classical mechanics never predicted. You can literally pump energy into a system and "create" mass or you can change mass into energy. Particle physicists use this all the time when they create particles at huge accelerators and it is also basically how the nuclear bomb works. You can take a proton and a neutron and bind them together to a Deuterium (fusion). The total mass is reduced because some of it will turn into binding energy and excessive energy that leaves as light. It is all, in principle, contained in the equation.

>> No.5517072

>>5516988
dont forget the einstein-de haas effect.
one of the best experiments in physics i have ever seen.

>> No.5517074

>>5516988
>2/ Proved the existence of atoms

0/10

>> No.5517080

>>5517074
He did.
>Brownian motion

>> No.5517107

>>5516960
..And then it turned out the classical physics world was just a secondary product which emerged out of the quantum physics world.

And Einstein got mad his theory was valid and useful only on a certain scale and it wasn't all that there is and makes things work. And then he proceeded to go from genius to full retard and say quantum physics must be wrong (because god can't play dice with reality).

Way to go, Einstein...

>> No.5517108

>>5517074
he did you retard.

>> No.5517110

he reinterpreted planks theory (the first quantum mechanics theory), then went on to propose an experiment to show his interpretation was correct thus showing the electromagnetic field is quantized.
secondly he combined the 2 major theories of the time (electromagnetism and classical mechanics) so-that they are compatible.
then he fixed newtons theory of gravity to work with no background (which newton wanted to do, but couldn't), along with experiments to prove it.
somewhere in there he also proved the existence of atoms.

all physics of the 20th century is basically based on things he did.

>> No.5517145

>>5517107
Jesus Christ go back to third grade English.

>> No.5517161

>0.999... = 1

>> No.5517254
File: 5 KB, 238x153, 7978.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5517254

M=E infinity, with the tinniest amount of mass can you make the largest amount of energy. When done properly.

>> No.5517266

>>5517108
You can't prove anything in science. An experiment giving a result that is within measurement uncertainty of what a theory predicts doesn't prove the theory is correct.

>> No.5517273

>>5517266
lelz, epic phil-phil my friend!

>> No.5517277

>>5517266

'True' might not mean what you think it means.

>> No.5517281

>>5517273
>can't into scientific epistemology
>plays it off as edgy

>>5517277
Tell me what it means.

>> No.5517283

>>5517266

Just because you majored in philosophy doesn't mean you know what you can do in science.

>> No.5517284

>>5517283
Why do you assume he majored in philosophy? What he posted is basic epistemology and well known to every scientist. Way to show that you are too cognitively impaired to ever contribute to science. Have fun with watching videos of Neil Tyson and similar pop sci heroes on youtube while dwelling in pseudo-intellectualism. And please stop violating >>>/global/rules/2

>> No.5517290

>>5517284
"You can't prove anything in science, only disprove" is the view of Karl Popper and while being a strong argument to tell science from pseudo-science it is by no means an accepted general scientific claim. Either way, Einstein showed by his calculations and experiments that the brownian motion of dust grains in water is due to atoms and that has nothing to do with your concerns of epistemology.

>> No.5517291

>>5517283
>oh no, he actually knows and understands science and isn't just a dogmatic idiot who memorized useless facts
>must be a worthless philosophy major hurr durr durr

Can you edgy r<span class="math">[/spoiler]eddit kids please stop polluting our science board?

>> No.5517297

>>5517290
The fact that science cannot prove but only disprove is way more fundamental than outdated Popper nonsense. However you proved something ITT. You proved that you failed at understanding the rational basics of science. You also proved that you don't know shit about the history of science. The existence of atoms has been hypothesized AND experimentally tested before Einstein. A simple google search on the history of atomic theory should tell you how wrong you are.

>> No.5517301

>>5517291

>knows and understands science and isn't just a dogmatic idiot
>hurr you can't prove anything in science

he turned his lack of historical knowledge into a philosophical argument, and I applaud him for his creativity but this isn't the board for shitposting like this.

whereas I myself don't even know whether it was Einstein that "proved" the existance of atoms, it's quite obvious that neither did he at the time of his initial shitposting.

>> No.5517302

>>5517291
yes, arguing about how nothing can be proven and people should not use the word in science even though the word means enough supporting evidence in science is much more sci.

>> No.5517308

>>5517297
>The existence of atoms has been hypothesized AND experimentally tested before Einstein
what test before him showed it? i cant find any experiments dating from before him on google.

>> No.5517310

>>5517301
>his lack of historical knowledge
Nice projection, high schooler. If you bothered reading up on the topic, you would of seen how wrong you are.

>>5517302
Using academic vocabulary is a fundamental skill in science. You are lacking this skill and you are polluting our intellectual discussion by using words incorrectly and out of context.

>> No.5517329

and another thread derailed by a shitposter. Stay classy /sci/

>> No.5517339

>>5517310
Ill just go burn all my journal articles ive read over the years that use the same vocabulary.

>> No.5517343
File: 122 KB, 375x390, 1349745568711.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5517343

>>5516974
>infamous

>> No.5517370

>>5516960
It helped to describe quantum mechanics as we know a particle has $E^2 = p^2m^2 + m^2c^4$, that we we can fight cancer with radiation and make transistors, so it is a pretty big deal.

>> No.5517430
File: 5 KB, 256x273, Descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5517430

>>5516960
Because Isaac Newton's life work pretty much made science stand still for 200 years. Remember history class, and how it was explained that the Victorian era was all about "progress" and mastering the "mechanical universe" proposed by Descartes? ("Cartesian maps" etc.?) Einstein showed the world that the universe wasn't as mechanical as we'd assumed up to that point. He proved it too.

>> No.5517437

Because it's universal and mainly this equation is being used in the whole world by not saying in the entire universe.

What if there exists an alien with the same characteristics as Albert Einstein? Just think about it.

>> No.5517489

>>5517308
FUCKING RUTHERFORDS GOLD FOIL EXPERIMENT YOU FUCKING DAFT RETARD.

GET OUT OF SCI.

>> No.5517518

>>5516976
I wish that I went to your highschool so I could have learnt about differential geometry, tensors, new metrics and 4vectors.

You are spraying so much bullshit that I almost vomit myself. You probably are a freshman at college and just heard about relativity and think you know it all. And Einstein never said "everything is relative", in fact it's not true. Mass, charge, spin just to name a few are relativistic invariant. Weren't scientifically revolutionnary? Wow, that's probably why he didn't get any recognition on his relativity work since many years later. You cleary do not understand relativity to say that it didn'T have many impact.

>> No.5517575

>>5517489

> YOU ASKED A QUESTION YOU DIDNT KNOW THE ANSWER TO
> IM SO ANGRY LEAVE THIS BOARD AND GO TO A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE MORE IGNORANT. THATLL FIX THINGS

>> No.5517646

>>5517575
No, actually it's
>you asked a rhetorical question you /though/ you knew the answer to.
>you pretend to know anything about science
>you express your opinion when you clearly don't know anything about what you're talking about

also fuck off.