E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula


by | Permalink | Comments (4) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!


Comments (4)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • socratus says:

    Why physi­cists don’t say: ‘ poten­tial mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?

    Accord­ing to SRT rest mass and rest ener­gy have equiv­a­lent
    mean­ing: E= Mc^2 or M= Ec^2.
    Why SRT and Quan­tum the­o­ry use word:’ rest mass /energy E= Mc^2 ‘
    and don’t say: ‘ poten­tial mass/energy E= Mc^2 ’ ?

    When some­body says ‘ the par­ti­cle in the rest . . .’, then we
    can image that par­ti­cle was going maybe to sleep, maybe
    to have a cup of cof­fee . . . . etc.
    That a strange ter­mi­nol­o­gy the physi­cists use.
    ======== .
    My opin­ion.

    In Clas­sic physics there is ‘ poten­tial ener­gy’ and
    there is ‘ kinet­ic ener­gy’.
    And „The Law of Con­ser­va­tion and Trans­for­ma­tion of
    Energy/ Mass” con­nects them togeth­er.

    In Quan­tum physics the ’rest mass/enegy’ looks as a sta­t­ic fac­tor.
    I think that there is prob­lem here.
    Because in QT there is ’rest mass/enegy E=Mc^2’ and
    there is active / kinet­ic ener­gy E=hf. But how „The Law of
    Con­ser­va­tion and Trans­for­ma­tion of Energy/ Mass“
    can unite them togeth­er nobody explains.

    In oth­er words:
    Dont know how to explain trans­forms the pote­nial
    mass/enegy E=Mc^2 into the active / kinet­ic ener­gy E=hf
    the physic­sts began to use new ter­mi­nol­o­gy and new words.
    ================== . .
    Socra­tus.
    http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Sci
    ===================== . .

  • socratus says:

    Why physi­cists don’t say: ‘ poten­tial mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?

    Accord­ing to SRT rest mass and rest ener­gy have equiv­a­lent
    mean­ing: E= Mc^2 or M= Ec^2.
    Why SRT and Quan­tum the­o­ry use word:’ rest mass /energy E= Mc^2 ‘
    and don’t say: ‘ poten­tial mass/energy E= Mc^2 ’ ?

    When some­body says ‘ the par­ti­cle in the rest . . .’, then we
    can image that par­ti­cle was going maybe to sleep, maybe
    to have a cup of cof­fee . . . . etc.
    That a strange ter­mi­nol­o­gy the physi­cists use.
    ======== .
    My opin­ion.

    In Clas­sic physics there is ‘ poten­tial ener­gy’ and
    there is ‘ kinet­ic ener­gy’.
    And „The Law of Con­ser­va­tion and Trans­for­ma­tion of
    Energy/ Mass” con­nects them togeth­er.

    In Quan­tum physics the ’rest mass/enegy’ looks as a sta­t­ic fac­tor.
    I think that there is prob­lem here.
    Because in QT there is ’rest mass/enegy E=Mc^2’ and
    there is active / kinet­ic ener­gy E=hf. But how „The Law of
    Con­ser­va­tion and Trans­for­ma­tion of Energy/ Mass“
    can unite them togeth­er nobody explains.

    In oth­er words:
    Dont know how to explain trans­forms the pote­nial
    mass/enegy E=Mc^2 into the active / kinet­ic ener­gy E=hf
    the physic­sts began to use new ter­mi­nol­o­gy and new words.
    ================== . .
    Socra­tus.
    http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Sci
    ===================== . .

  • […] from the late 1990s, and par­tic­u­lar­ly the leg­endary TV com­mer­cial that fea­tured 17 icon­ic fig­ures: Albert Ein­stein, Bob Dylan, Mar­tin Luther King, Jr., Richard Bran­son, John Lennon, Buck­min­ster Fuller, Thomas […]

  • socratus says:

    Going back to the Einstein’s ques­tion.

    In his Mir­a­cle 1905 Ein­stein wrote the Fourth paper:
    “ On the Elec­tro­dy­nam­ics of mov­ing Bod­ies.” ( SRT).
    And as a post­script to his forth, the Fifth paper:
    “ Does the iner­tia of a body depend upon its ener­gy con­tent?”
    Some months lat­er he real­ized the answer :
    ‘ Yes, iner­tia depends on its ener­gy E= Mc^2.
    The Elec­tro­dy­nam­ics Bod­ies in iner­tial move­ment have
    ener­gy E= Mc^2 — ( hid­den ener­gy E= Mc^2)’
    #
    The same Einstein’s ques­tion in a lit­tle detail inter­pre­ta­tion:
    “Does the iner­tia of a body ( for exam­ple: of a light quan­ta
    or of an elec­tron) depend upon its ener­gy con­tent E=Mc^2 ?”
    Think­ing log­i­cal­ly, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.
    When new ques­tion arise:
    How is pos­si­ble to under­stand the con­nec­tion
    between E=Mc^2 and the ‘ iner­tia of a body’ ?
    ============== . .
    P.S.
    Some­one wrote to me:
    “An old pro­fes­sor of mine used to say
    that any­one who can answer that ques­tion
    what iner­tia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
    ! !
    ==========.
    Best wish­es.
    Israel Sadovnik. Socra­tus
    =========================. .

  • socratus says:

    Where does strange E= Mc^2 come from?
    1.-
    In 1905 Ein­stein asked:
    “ Does the iner­tia of a body depend upon its ener­gy con­tent?”
    As he real­ized the answer was:
    “ Yes, it depends on its ener­gy E= Mc^2 ”
    So, Ein­stein said that E= Mc^2 comes from iner­tia
    2 -
    In 1928 Dirac said that E= Mc^2 comes from vac­u­um
    and can be as pos­i­tive as neg­a­tive too
    3 -
    Some­times E= Mc^2 can have ‘rest’ para­me­ter and
    some­times can be ‘active’ and can destroy cities like
    Hiroshi­ma and Nagasa­ki
    Why E= Mc^2 is so stange?
    Nobody gives answer
    ===.
    Best wish­es.
    Israel Sadovnik Socra­tus
    ==============.

  • WONG SWEE LOKE says:

    I AGAIN DECODE UNCLE EINSTEIN
    E=Mc^2/MacCabe.

    Sig­naech­er: HIRH. 1Ti Wong Swee Loke

  • socratus says:

    Dur­ing our cross­ing, Ein­stein explained his the­o­ry
    to me every day, and by the time we arrived I was ful­ly
    con­vinced he under­stood it.
    / Chaim Weiz­mann, 1921
    after he escort­ed Ein­stein to the Unit­ed States./

    ===.

Leave a Reply

Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.