This is an extract of my scientific essay “The Birth of our Perceptible Universe”…
My understanding of E=mc², but first, some context.
- In my theory, I posit that mathematics is a language just like English or Chinese. If I don’t speak Chinese or English, that doesn’t mean I can’t visualise or understand the concepts communicated in those languages.
- Moreover, a language allows us to describe reality, as well as fantasies, dreams, and hypotheses -both false and true-. In other words, mathematics can describe anything, including false reasoning.
- Finally, all mathematical notations and formulas could be written in full words -in any native language-. The semantics, or the definitions of terms, are crucial for meaningful communication. Our brains associate visual concepts with words -except in cases of aphantasia, where this linking doesn’t happen-. The ability of our “mind’s eye” to reconstruct logical or conceivable objects or events when we hear or read is what makes understanding possible. Therefore, for any concept, theory, or opinion to be meaningful, it needs to be visualisable.
Now two examples:
- 1 + 1 = 2 is exactly the same as “one plus one equals two” -just to show that math isn’t more rigorous than language-. Ultimately, the true rigor lies in the chain of visualizable thoughts.
- I can say “I saw one pink elephant climbing a tree”. Later I see another one doing the same. I can them say “one plus one equals two pink elephants climbing a tree”. Both the sentence and the calculation are correct and visualisable, though most likely false…
After having set the parameters, let us tackle the actual problem: E=mc2.
I’ve always wondered how this formula reveals the amount of energy in a particle.
E=mc2 actually describes an interaction between the four fundamental constituents of our universe: energy, matter -because by definition mass is matter-, space
-measured in km- and time -measured in s-. To the uninitiated, it’s unclear what interaction Einstein envisioned between these elements that would determine a particle’s energy -especially the
squared speed of light-.
It gets even more confusing when we consider that km²/s² involves a combination of surface area and perhaps acceleration -which are impossible to visualise
directly-. How can surface and acceleration interact?
The only meaningful, visualizable combination of these four elements is the energy required to move a given amount of mass at the speed of light squared. That said,
I understand that the physics community argues this is exactly the function of abstract mathematics: processing concepts that we cannot directly visualise.
In my opinion, that’s where unexplainable contradictions reside.
Even if we cannot directly observe all physical phenomena, I posit that they must be logically visualizable to be processed and understood -that’s the foundation of
my theory-.
If this combination of units and variables does not need to be visualized, then the units are irrelevant -only the numerical values matter-. Without units, c² could
be replaced by any constant, and the equation would lose its meaning -at least from a semantic standpoint-.
What relation could Einstein have seen between c² and the energy of a particle?
c² describes a form of movement -by definition, a combination of space and time-. So, how can space and time directly determine a particle’s energy?
Finally, we must address the fact that this formula has been verified countless times -both mathematically and experimentally-. The collision of particles traveling
at relativistic speeds reliably measures a quantity of energy related to c.
However, with utmost respect to the scientific community, other data seem to contradict this measurement.
Indeed, as a comparison, radiolysis also splits nuclei, but in a radically different way. The difference between particle collider and radiolysis is like using a
sledgehammer or a screwdriver to open a nucleus.
Similarly, I could smash an orange against a wall 10,000 times, measuring the energy from the splash of juice each time. I could then claim that the orange contains
enormous energy -because it splashes widely each time-. Alternatively, splitting the orange with a knife yields radically different, yet measurable and reproducible, results…
So, how can E=mc² be “visually” explained to uninitiated?...