At the moment, I'd say my ideas on the subject are very FMA, although the idea of equivalent exchange has been with me for a lot longer than the show has. I'm open to new interpretations, but I view it as turning something into something that's worth the same.
That interpretation does not seem clear to me, considering that the value of things is subjective. Unless the measure is energy or something of the sort, it seems like mambo jambo to me! :P
Besides, the whole point of alchemy is to get something that has more value than what you previously had. Also, I haven't actually read/watched FMA, so I wouldn't really know its interpretation, except perhaps for the fact that it is probably quite imaginative.
This... is the FMA way. :P
Well, it seems to me that the only objective way (unless I'm missing something) would be that the original material and the product should be equivalent in their total mass-energy.
Not mass, because you could have a plastic folder and turn it into it's weight in platinum, which would probably be worth a lot more.
Not materials, because then you wouldn't really be able to turn anything into anything else so much as reconstruct something. Though that could be a step in the process...?
Maybe energy... I mean, some objects don't have any energy, so they couldn't be changed... if that were the case, then something like a nuclear fuel rod would become really valuble.
Ugh... my brain's starting to hurt. :P
- If two photons collide under suitable conditions it is possible that the outcome of the collision will be an electron and a positron (an anti-electron, if you are not familiar with antimatter, I can explain that, too, though it's not really relevant). So, from two photons which are quantums of energy, you get two particles that have mass.
- If an electron and a positron collide under suitable conditions, they are annihilated and two photons are emitted. So, from mass you get energy.
Einstein gave the equation E=mc^2, meaning that any physical particle, even when immobile, it has at least energy of that amount. Thus, mass and energy are related. I hope this is clear.
That's why when I say total mass-energy, I do not mean them as two different options, but as one whole.
A physical object will have a certain mass and besides the energy that derives from the above equation, but there's also the energy of the chemical bonds, the potential energy its atoms, the thermal energy and maybe other energies that I forget. What I propose is that the total sum of these is the only objective measure of something's value, albeit it may not necessarily correspond to our idea of wha's worth and what's not.
As for the example you gave earlier, I'd have to counter that the amount of platinum you'd get from a bit of plastic would be really little, so I'm not very sure how much more value you'd get from it. And I still would like to counter that getting something of greater value is the actual goal of alchemy, though it might be different in other interpretations. One might say that alchemists have compromised there.
I know what mass energy is but I wasn't quite sure if that's what you were suggesting as a... thing... to measure equivalence. ( best unit. :P )
Yep, I'm aware that my examples weren't amazing. When this sort of discussion comes up, I often write down something as I think it and then don't proof read. -_-. in any case, mass-energy sounds like the way to go.
However, the problem with going with that is that it'd be too difficult for us to actually measure what's equivalent to what. Unless it is not too difficult, if we're vague enough on what exactly are the portions of each material.
We could also look at the historical aspects of alchemy, as we have already viewed the scientific and fantastical attributes.Â
*Alchemy was concieved based on the belief of there being four cardinal elements (earth, water, air and fire)
*Alchemists believed that materials were all the same, just in different forms. A key example is metals - they thought that metals, rather than being different variations of the same material, were all the same material in different forms, with the illustrious gold being the final form. This is what led to the whole "turn lead to gold" idea.
*Come to think of it, gold was considered perfect, and often used as an anagram for perfection. For instance, a perfect human would be referred to as a "golden being", who has spiritual beauty unlike anything else. We still have concepts such as "golden boy" or "gold star" in our lives today for this reason.
*On the subject of the philosopher's stone... it was viewed not as a stone perse, but instead as "a wax, liquid or powder that held magical powers"
So yeah. Alchemy is the forerunner to the chemistry that we know today, except with more Avatar: The Last Airbender ideals in there. :P