DNA – Information - Evolution.

[socratus]

Quantum electrodynamics: Who am I ?
==.
Can QED give the answer to the question: ‘ Who am I ?’
To answer to this question allow me to take one biological cell.
The cell has two ( 2 ) substances: matter and electromagnetic
fields. Then we need to understand :
Where did the matter and electromagnetic fields come from?
Question:
Do we need to search for two sources or enough one source ?
#
Matter and electromagnetic fields are some kind of energy.
But matter and energy were tied in one formula: E=Mc^2.
Therefore I will unite matter, energy and electromagnetic
fields in one simple question:
Where does E=Mc^2 come from ?
We have many sources of E=Mc^2:
F. Hasenohrl, A. Einstein, P. Dirac.
====.
Socratus.

 

[The Old Medic]

Socratus, you are trying to read something that you have absolutely no basis to understand, you are utterly confused about what you HAVE read, and you ave no ability TO understand it.

You want the answers to your questions? Go get a couple of Doctorates it the appropriate fields, and then you won't be asking such truly STUPID questions.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Where does E=Mc^2 come from ?

The simplest way to derive it that I've seen comes from the requirement that the laws of motion be invariant under a Lorentz transformation--that's the set of equations that describe the relationship between the spacetime coordinates of two observers in uniform relative motion--and an analysis of the conservation of momentum under that condition.

 

[socratus]

Where does E=Mc^2 come from ?

The simplest way to derive it that I've seen comes from the requirement that
the laws of motion be invariant under a Lorentz transformation--
that's the set of equations that describe the relationship between
the spacetime coordinates of two observers in uniform relative motion--
and an analysis of the conservation of momentum under that condition.

Do you connect E=Mc^2 to the Lorentz transformations ?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yes, it depends critically on the postulates of SRT. You can't derive it from Newtonian physics, Newton's laws are not invariant under a Lorentz transform, and to that extent do not accurately describe reality. They're a very good approximation most of the time simply because the velocity of light is so large compared to most velocities we ordinarily encounter, so the key term in the Lorentz transform, 1-v^2/c^2, is 1 for most practical purposes.

 

[socratus]

Where does E=Mc^2 come from ?

the relationship between the spacetime coordinates
of two observers in uniform relative motion--.

==.
Can you explain details about
‘ the relationship between the spacetime coordinates
of two observers in uniform relative motion . . .’

Because I know that:
One postulate of SRT takes vacuum as reference frame.
Another postulate of SRT takes inertial reference frame (s).

And I don’t know that you mean writing
‘‘ the relationship between the spacetime coordinates’
==.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

If you don't know what that means you can't have any real understanding of special relativity, and clearly you don't or you wouldn't say it takes the vacuum as a reference frame; it doesn't.

I can specify the location of anything by providing its three space coordinates and one time coordinate, x, y, z, and t, in some reference frame that's convenient for me, which usually would be the one in which I perceive myself to be at rest. So can you, and if we're in uniform relative motion what's most convenient for me probably won't be what's most convenient for you, you'll use a different set of coordinates. If you're in a moving car, for instance, tossing a ball up and down in one hand, you'll see it, and describe it's motion, as going straight up and down. I, standing on the ground watching you go by, will see it as moving in a sawtooth pattern. The Lorentz transformation is how I can convert your coordinate system to mine, and vice versa, so that we both come up with the same laws of physics.

 

[L Gilbert]

A while ago I bumped into a really easily understood explanation of the theory:

What's Wrong With E=MC^2?

But I thought this thread was about genetics and evolution. The connection seems to be pretty obscure to me.

 

[socratus]

If you don't know what that means you can't have any real understanding of special relativity,
and clearly you don't or you wouldn't say it takes the vacuum as a reference frame; it doesn't.

I can specify the location of anything by providing its three space coordinates and
one time coordinate, x, y, z, and t, in some reference frame that's convenient for me,
which usually would be the one in which I perceive myself to be at rest.
So can you, and if we're in uniform relative motion what's most convenient for me probably
won't be what's most convenient for you, you'll use a different set of coordinates.
If you're in a moving car, for instance, tossing a ball up and down in one hand,
you'll see it, and describe it's motion, as going straight up and down.
I, standing on the ground watching you go by, will see it as moving in a sawtooth pattern.
The Lorentz transformation is how I can convert your coordinate system to mine,
and vice versa, so that we both come up with the same laws of physics.

Thank you.

A while ago I bumped into a really easily understood explanation of the theory:

What's Wrong With E=MC^2?

But I thought this thread was about genetics and evolution.
The connection seems to be pretty obscure to me.

Thank you.

 

[socratus]

Biophoton communication:
Biophoton Communication: Can Cells Talk Using Light? - Technology Review
==..