E=mc2

[Locke%erasmus]

if mass can be annihalated to create vast amounts of energy, can energy be annihalated to form matter? could this possibly be how the universe was created? by the way, im new here.

[Erasmus00]

if mass can be annihalated to create vast amounts of energy, can energy be annihalated to form matter? could this possibly be how the universe was created? by the way, im new here.

 

Yes, energy goes to matter and matter goes to energy all the time. Perhaps googling virtual particles would help shed light on the matter for you.

 

And yes, one theory of the origin of the universe is that it simply popped itself into existance by what is called a vacuum fluctuation.

-Will

[Qfwfq]

if mass can be annihalated to create vast amounts of energy, can energy be annihalated to form matter? could this possibly be how the universe was created? by the way, im new here.

Actually, mass is energy. In a sense, it's one form of energy.

[Aki]

Just remember, mass is energy and energy is mass. Take a look at this example: I have an ice cube with a temperature of -50 degrees celcius, and I have another identical ice cube with a temperature of -5 degrees celcius. Now which one ice cube has more mass? The one at -5 degrees. That's because the second ice cube has more "heat" which means more energy. So more energy, the more mass.

[emessay]

But why should be E = mc2 , not E = C x mc2 ; C = another Constant ?

[C1ay]

But why should be E = mc2 , not E = C x mc2 ; C = another Constant ?

Constant for what?

[nkt]

Because of a simple tool, called Occam's Razor. You make it as simple as possible, without going too far.

 

There is no point in adding in other numbers and or constants, since they would all have to sum to zero for the answer to be correct.

 

On a graph, the +C is needed because it is an unknown offset to the origin of the graph, which is a non-reversible function, since some data is lost when the full equation for the line is differentiated, and this doesn't come back when integrated.

 

If you really want to pop a +C on the end, and note that C = 0, then feel free. But it is confusing, and wastes ink.

[Tormod]

But why should be E = mc2 , not E = C x mc2 ; C = another Constant ?

 

It could be X=fr2 if you like, using any constant. But that would not be the theory of relativity unless X = energy, f = mass and r2 = speed of light, squared.

[bartock]

if mass can be annihalated to create vast amounts of energy, can energy be annihalated to form matter? could this possibly be how the universe was created? by the way, im new here.

welcome.

 

i am a bit rusty here

e=electro magnetic radiation(emr)

m= mass=e slowed down

c=speed of light

e=mc2

m=e/c2

which means that the 'm' is defined by 'e/c2' . which means energy slowed down.or emr slowed down or some ppl call it light(=emr, photons some times behave like waves and some times like particles)slowed down.

what it really means is that energy canges form. every thing that we see is actually 'e' in its different forms.

[Erasmus00]

But why should be E = mc2 , not E = C x mc2 ; C = another Constant ?

 

When you consider the basic assumption of SR, light travels at the same speed in every reference frame, then a lot of things happen to the laws of physics. One of the things that happens is that when you go back and try to rederive a formula for kinetic energy, what you get is

 

Kinetic Energy = mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 - mc^2.

 

Einsteins interpretation of this is that the first term on the right represents total energy, the second term represents energy the particle has just by the very nature of existing. So, you get two equations from this,

 

Total Energy = m/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 *c^2.

 

Rest Energy= mc^2.

 

Some physicists interpret the m/(1-v^2/c^2)^.5 to be a sort dynamic mass, increasing as you approach the speed of light. This is why you cannot keep accelerating a mass indefinately, it gets heavier and heavier. Calling this dynamic mass M we have:

 

Total Energy = M *c^2.

 

So, niether the total energy nor the rest energy have need of an extra constant. The math just doesn't put it there.

-Will

[Little Bang]

Total Energy = m/(1-v^2/c^2) *c^2.

 

Isn't this the same as Total Energy=M/C^2 - V^2

[Erasmus00]

Total Energy = m/(1-v^2/c^2) *c^2.

 

Isn't this the same as Total Energy=M/C^2 - V^2

 

My fault, the bottom parenthesis should be raised to the 1/2 power. Typo.

-Will

[Little Bang]

Very good Eras, you've shown us an oddity. even when you take the square root of 1-v^2/c^2, both equations yield the same answer.

[Qfwfq]

Actually, the c^2 is also superfluous. Unless you make the clumsy, antiquated choice of using different units for space-like and for time-like intervals, c = 1. The full equation is:

 

m^2 = E^2 - p^2

 

and for a body at rest, p = 0, you get E = m.

[emessay]

What's difference with this :

 

E - mc2 = 0 ~ ZERO

 

m = observable universe mass = 10exp(+52) kg

 

What does it really means of "ZERO" in deep inside our consciousness [200 billion neurons] ?