# E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula

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!

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
===================== . .

• […] Ein­stein Explains His Famous For­mu­la – Audio – Orig­i­nal […]

• […] 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.
=========================. .

• socratus says:

Where does strange E= Mc^2 come from?
1.-
“ 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?
===.
Best wish­es.
==============.

• 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./

===.

• ## Support Us

We're hoping to rely on loyal readers, rather than erratic ads. Please click the Donate button and support Open Culture. You can use Paypal, Venmo, Patreon, even Crypto! We thank you!

• ## Receive our Daily Email

#### GET OUR DAILY EMAIL

Get the best cultural and educational resources on the web curated for you in a daily email. We never spam. Unsubscribe at any time.