C Squared

Jim,

[answers]

1) It certainly might. Especially for some of the force calculations.
2) One way to calculate energy.

f = ma is useful in a lot of places, so why not here? And you certainly will need to calculate energy in particle collisions.

Sounds like a good place to look for examples. Lets see what you have?

LB

Have you noticed the shape of the path the particles take after a collision ? Is this conservation of momentum ? The equation E=mc^2 does not explain this !

The problem is: nobody has come up with the right equation !

Is this loss of potential energy, what were the forces involved ?
Did entropy increase in the process ?

GD,

Yeah, I know what you mean. If only we had some other equations to play with. Perhaps one of them would be able to explain particle paths or conservation of momentum.

Oh well,
LB

Guys,

Ok then, before we have other equations to play with that explain particle paths and conservation of momentum we're overlooking one big thing...

What's the equation for a particle itself? I'm not talking about the Schroedinger equation for a free particle, or the Dirac particle at rest, or the Hamiltonian associated with particle interactions, or anything else DEALING WITH PARTICLES like those equations do. I'm talking about an equation that can ubiquitously define itself as any possible particle that must also be comprehensible by the layman populace at large.

E=mc^2, E=Pt, A=pir^3, the Platonic solids, Sierpinski and Mandelbrot fractals, and my neo uncertainty relations aren't the ubiquitous particle equation either.

I mean if we really knew what the ubiquitous equation is that can act as any particle, in its simplest terms, wouldn't we be able to derive greater insight into particle paths and momentum conservation? Or would we just know what a hardcore particle is and still be stymied by all the zeropoint physics surrounding it?

Either way I still wanna know what the most understandable, incomplex, and uninvolved geometry of a particle is albeit still dealing with Force and Energy as every particle does.

..........................Omni

Hmmm. An equation that explains EVERYthing ...

Sounds sort of useful. I wonder why no one has done it yet?

Perhaps one of the examples that Jim is going to provide (of the vast superiority of f = ma over E = mc^2) will lead to the discovery of this "ALL" equation?

LB

LB, I don't think Jim is going to provide any examples here because the entire subject needs to be reviewed as is clear to me by the above posts. If you start with E=mc^2 as an approximation the posts above will be modified because the momentum of the events being kicked is altered from absolute values to approximate values and the overall perspective is quite different. I never said f=ma is better than E=mc^2-it is more useful but still needs the limit set by the speed of light(I think anyway). If you think about it a bit E=mc^2 is only the tail end of f=ma anyway. So in summing up there is a need to review about 100 years of past research in order to clearify the data.