Even if a particle is neither moving nor part of a bound system, it has an associated energy, simply because of its mass. This is called the particle's rest energy, and it is related to the particle's rest mass as
rest energy = (rest mass)· c2
This in Einstein theory. E=Mc^2 has many...
I don't have only a problem, I have several problems. Lets see why the Gravitational constant it's not sacred. That's why there are another methods to mesure gravity.
It is readily apparent that the current gravitational constant is not a tangible physical concept as demonstrated by its...
That means that you don't agree with my affirmation? This is a common knowledge between mathematicians; it is similar to fundamental research (or basic research) and applied research.
If you read all my posts you will understand that they are different from the first. I inserted lots of...
About my posture you are wrong.
I am always searching for something to learn. My principle is: we can learn so much with the ones that don't know nothing.
I knew that m.m/s.s is equivalent to m^2/s^2, this is basic! But even if I had written correctly my doubt about velocity will be...
That happened at my first thread. But why are you fixing your focus on that, taking in consideration that you can see in all my threads from that point that my positions didn't have nothing to do with the difference between m/s and m^2/s^2?
After all, until now, no one explain the meaning of...
Thank you for you exposition. But where do you get the idea that I considered that c is equal to c^2?
The problem is that 89875517873681764 m^2/s^2 have to be verified in a concrete experience. I don't know any experience where this have been verified. It is always said that the formula...
The scope that underlies my participation in this forum, is mainly related with the difficulty in define the exact characterization of c^2 and it's qualitative meaning, on the other hand, the inexistence of an empirical demonstration where the Einstein formula has been completely proven...
The specific physical transformation results from the other forms of energy. The main energy set free in a nuclear fission results from binding energy converted to other forms of energy.
Generically speaking the difference between pure mathematics and applied mathematics. I know that there are several cases where pure mathematics became applied mathematics. But I am not so optimistic as Nikolai Lobachevsky: "There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not...
Einstein would say that in a system where there is energy (E), it automatically has the relativistic mass m=E/c2; whenever a system has the mass m, you need to assign it an energy E=mc2. Once the mass is known, so is the energy, and vice versa. In that context, it makes no sense to talk about...
The mathematic meaning could be far from the pratical world. Don't you know many situations in which this happens?
Mathematics couldn't be seen as an absolute concept to explain the world, notwithstanding the enormous help that gave and will give in our understanding of the world .
Ok. I will try to be synthetic taking in account the place where we are.
The strength of the nuclear bond depends on the number of neutrons and protons involved. It varies in such a way that binding energy is released both in splitting up a heavy nucleus into smaller parts and in fusing...
Don't interpret my words literally, they are not a mathematic formula :) . In science nor in nothing you have 100% . But show me an example where the E=mc^2 formula has been completely (not parcially and not because has been important to get conclusions in other observations, etc) proved.
If you call "Faith" to the will of discover the truth freely without blarney anybody, YES is faith what determines my study, faith of getting the truth. The faith that you are talking about, you only could deduce it from my words with a great faith.
NO, it isn't. Because to Einstein, realtivistic mass and energy are simply two different names for one and the same physical quantity. Read Einstein carefully and you will verify that this is as Iam saying.
Humm. The formula has been partially proven. But I am talking from the begining about...
There are chemical reactions where there are tiny mass differences as well. An example: When hydrogen and oxygen explosively combine to make water, the sum of the rest masses of the initial hydrogen and oxygen atoms is just a little bit less than the sum of the rest masses of the resulting water...
There are chemical reactions where there are tiny mass differences as well. An example: When hydrogen and oxygen explosively combine to make water, the sum of the rest masses of the initial hydrogen and oxygen atoms is just a little bit less than the sum of the rest masses of the resulting water...
Could you explain what did you mean with "deception".
Seams to me that you have a clear explanation to my question; do you give the pleasure to know it?
The connection between atomic bombs and e=mc^2 is subtle. A nuclear explosion is not caused by the transformation of matter and energy. I already knew this connection, but the problem is that I don't know any pratical experience in which the "full" formula has been proved.
c^2 couldn't be...
Can you decribe an experience in which will be possible to get c2?
If a body reaches the speed of light will not become equal to all of it's energy, because we have an "obstacle" the c2. I would like to have a pratical "image" (a pratical experience) of this.
If we are not talking about the speed anymore, what we are talking about?
In the SI units I didn't find meaning for m2/s2! It is J/kg?
In what kind of experiences you get this number: 89875517873681764 m2/s2? Note that I am thinking about a total formula application and not in a parcial...
I red the content of the URL https://www.physicsforums.com/showth...?t=80640&page=1 [Broken] before
insert my question in this forum.
Focus your attention in this:
c2=89875517873681764 m2/s2
Forget the mathematic abstraction and please tell me:
1. This have pratical application...
e=mc^2 is equivalent to e=m.89875517873681764 m/s
The speed of light is a constant. How this is possible in reality?
Is not possible to have a body traveling at this speed, because simply doesn't exists (or at least we don't discover it yet).
I already read several answers to this kind...