Tough physics question!!
- Thread starter ScottyDog
- Start date
- Status
e = m(c^2)
I have a feeling that this is some sort of QI set up so I'm going to be waiting for the sirens.
The second equation shows impulse (i.e. change in momentum) as c is always constant in a vacuum only m could change, therefore e would = delta(Kgms-1). Maybe his original theorem notation was to show momentum but I thought that would have been covered by Newton.
The first equation shows that a set amount of energy is equivalent to a set amount of mass (when travelling at c ms-1) which is the basis of it, that mass and energy are two sides of the same coin.
I have a feeling that this is some sort of QI set up so I'm going to be waiting for the sirens.
The second equation shows impulse (i.e. change in momentum) as c is always constant in a vacuum only m could change, therefore e would = delta(Kgms-1). Maybe his original theorem notation was to show momentum but I thought that would have been covered by Newton.
The first equation shows that a set amount of energy is equivalent to a set amount of mass (when travelling at c ms-1) which is the basis of it, that mass and energy are two sides of the same coin.
... edit: im going to go with E=change in MC2 as everybody thinks it is e=mc2, if e=mc2 is correct then you wouldnt be asking the question.
Consider:
E=MC^2
M=E/C^2
delta M = M1/M2 M1 is initial mass, M2 is final mass.
M1/M2 = E/C^2
If M1 was at zero mass (no mass), E must therefore be zero joules as C is a constant (speed of light)
However, how can there physically be a change in mass without a release or change of energy?
E=MC^2
M=E/C^2
delta M = M1/M2 M1 is initial mass, M2 is final mass.
M1/M2 = E/C^2
If M1 was at zero mass (no mass), E must therefore be zero joules as C is a constant (speed of light)
However, how can there physically be a change in mass without a release or change of energy?
Your not changing anything, the result is still the same your just expressing the equation differently. If you start with nothing, it can not be converted into something.
His theory was yes E=MC2 in that they are not seperate, but can be switched from one to the other.
Stop trying to confuse the poor people!
Delta M = m2 - m1.
if you had:
m1/m2 = e/c^2 then the equation is untrue as if you broke it down into SI units:
kg / kg = J / ms-1
therefore the result is:
0 = kg which is not true.
e= change in mc^2 would be written longhanded as:
e = m2c2^2 - m1c1^2 and as c1 = c2:
e = (c^2)(m2-m1)
ok
think about it without equations
which one was the original theory
if e = mc^2 was the final one he established then E=change in MC^2 is baitly his original which he reworked to get e = mc^2
that my answer
- Status