Analyzing E=MC2: What Does Energy Have to Do with Distance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Makep
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    E=mc2
AI Thread Summary
The discussion analyzes E=MC² dimensionally, concluding that energy (E) is related to distance (s) in a unique way. It emphasizes that E is not equivalent to Es, suggesting that Es represents a different concept that should be treated separately. The conversation highlights that the units of force (kg·m/s²) differ from those of energy (kg·m²/s²), reinforcing the distinction between the two. Additionally, it notes that the equation mc² shares units with kinetic energy (1/2 mv²). The analysis invites further clarification on these interpretations within the context of Einstein's relativity.
Makep
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
By analyzing E=MC2 dimensionally, we will get these results.

kgM/S2 = kg(M2/S2)
= kg(m)(m/s2)
= kgm/s2(m)
= E x distance

E != Es where E = energy and s = distance or displacement. What we are seeing here with Einstein's relativity is that energy has a factor of distance or space as well. Is this wrong or can soeone correct me on this, please?

Es is no longer energy but something else and should be treated as such, I believe.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kg\frac { m} {s^2} = Mass x acceleration is the units of Force, not energy. Energy is kg\frac { m^2} {s^2} just like in E = m c^2
 
Thanks for the correction.
 
Of course, mc2 has the same units as (1/2)mv2, the kinetic energy.
 
Back
Top