When I first opened up the readings for today I had a mild panic attack and painful flashbacks to general physics, but surprisingly I actually kind of enjoyed these readings (much more than the calculus readings anyways!). The Thorne readings especially did a really great job of explaining Newton’s and Einstein’s theories and the relationship between the two- at least as good of a job as my Physics 211/212 classes did! One of the first things that really struck me was Einstein’s realization that his theory of relativity and tidal gravity were actually the same theories worded in different ways. I was always under the impression that the physicists of the world had stumbled along for centuries using Newton’s laws until Einstein came along and was able to prove that Newton was wrong. In reality however, scientists using Newton’s laws alone were able to make incredibly accurate predictions! According to Thorne, Einstein’s discovery did not prove that Newton was wrong, simply that he did not have “the whole picture.” I also found Einstein’s history and the process he went through over the years to develop his theory of relativity very interesting and amusing- especially his professors description of his as lazy. If only this was the kind of stuff we learned in gen. physics...
Another point that interested me was the distinction both authors made between physics and mathematics. Both articles stated several times that Einstein was a brilliant physicist but only an adequate mathematician at best. From my frame of reference (lol), physics and math are so similar that I cannot imagine someone being good at one but not the other. I always believed that to understand math was to understand physics and vice versa... Apparently Einstein is proof that I was wrong! Of course Einstein’s “bad at math” is not equivalent to my bad at math. If I was as good at math as Einstein was bad at it I could probably be a math major.
The final thing that really stood out to me was Greene’s claim in the third article that eventually all matter in our universe would be converted to energy. I of course knew that there was a relationship between mass and energy, and that mass can be converted into usable energy, but it has never crossed my mind to emphasize the equation the way Einstein himself did- with the emphasis on the creation of mass from energy rather than the other way around. To my knowledge, we have not yet been able to do this in a lab, but I am very ignorant about physics so someone please correct me if I am wrong! The ability to create mass from energy such as heat or light would be a truly amazing thing!
As a physics major let me first say that without Einstein, Gottingen, and Hilbert many of our modern day niceties wouldn't be. Anything using GPS uses Einsteins' equations to compensate for the shift that Relativity plays on us. So there goes cell phones, GPS systems for cars, and most personal computers. Talk about a historical impact!
ReplyDeleteAn ethical component would be the use of Einsteins achievements for progress or lack there of. Einstein was one of the minds that lead to nuclear warheads (E=mc^2). Converting mass to energy would release a bunch of energy causing massive pressure and heat as well as causing electrons to peel off from atoms that results in an pulse of electrons and lingering radiation. This is generally bad for many reasons, environmentally this messes up natures way of dealing with evolution by interfering with genetic material for decades to centuries following nuclear detonations.
I would also like to add that the equation posited in Greene's paper is slightly askew in as much as E = mc^2 only accounts for particles not moving with respect to the observer. In most circumstances objects, especially atoms, tend to be moving (have momentum p) and the above equation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2.
And lastly, with high enough energy it is possible to 'borrow' energy to make particles. An uncertainty principle states that the change in energy is inversely proportional to the time of the object created. Particle colliders create matter all the time by smashing matter together to basically make a soup of energy (quarks and gluons) and from this energy particles combine for a short time and decay away.
Kate, I like your second paragraph because that is exactly what went on through my head as I read it. I agree that with physics, to understand much of their concepts, you need to understand a lot of math concepts. I guess that is why Einstein only needed to be an adequate mathematician because you don't need to know super complex math for all of physics. (of course I only two general physics one and two too so I am not sure how complicated it can get).
ReplyDeleteThe part I really enjoyed from this reading was the in the third article by Greene. The part where they talk about E=mc^2 and how it is in so many everyday things. I guess when it came down to it, I never really thought how prevalent this little equation is. It really was one of the greatest breakthroughs in physics as Greene says it was. The best part was when they talked about the mp3 player using E=mc^2. I always knew the equation was mass and energy equivalence, but I never thought of it in something like my mp3 player. Yes, cars and bigger items always came to mind, but them giving the example of an mp3 player, that just opened my eyes to how important this equation really is (because it's in every little thing in our lives).
I was also amazed that E=mc^2 was in so many things, in my head (as a non-math non-physics major) this equation was used for "important" things like figuring out the meaning of life (42) and it didn't occur to me that these things would also be used for everyday things though it seems obvious. It's funny that I use these things all the time, but don't think about what is behind them.
ReplyDeleteI think the one of the most interesting things that you mention is that he wasn't "wrong" just didn't have the whole picture. I feel that for a lot of modern mathematical and physics development (and I'm not completely up to date on this but I'm going from my basic knowledge) we've been adding to the picture or revising older pictures, but rarely have to toss something out entirely.
Similar to many of the comments above, I was kind of blown away by Greene's article. I had taken a fair amount of physics, including some of Modern Physics in which we did the "high school algebra" proof to get to E=mc^2, but I had never looked at the equation from both directions. Like Greene stated, most people, myself included, thought of the mass to energy process and not the reverse.
ReplyDeleteThe illustration of the two jousters was particularly helpful to me. I'd never represented the equation both ways in the physical world, but now I can see that it does happen. Like Jameson said, we can make more mass than would be expected when using high energy colliders, with that extra mass coming from the energy. Now that I've read Greene's article I'll be more alert to E=mc^2 in my daily life, even if it isn't directly observable to me.
I also found it very interesting when Thorne wrote about Einstein's amazing knowledge and abilities in physics but his struggles with math. I had always believed that to be that amazing in physics, it required a great amount of intelligence in the field of math (maybe more knowledge of math than of physics). What really amazed me though was when Thorne told of Hilbert's discoveries in the law of warpage occurring during Einstein's work on the same topic. Einstein did all the preceding work but both made great final discoveries on warpage. I, however, have never heard of Hilbert and always believed this was purely Einstein's work.
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting how some people could be so passionate about a certain topic. Einstein worked on physics tirelessly, but I don't think it was because he was very determined and focused. I think he was really into physics and had a lot of fun and was very curious about the topic.
ReplyDelete