# E=mc^2 is not fully proven

1. Sep 20, 2010

### your_friend

so this guy who says hes a computer science major said this.

"E=MC^2 but for rigor you must prove and demonstrate M=E/C^2 as well of your proof to be complete.".

and because of that he says E=mc^2 is not fully proven.

inputs?. is he right or wrong?.

thanks.

Last edited: Sep 21, 2010
2. Sep 20, 2010

### cjl

Re: E=mc^2...

What?

If E = MC2, then M=E/C2 through basic algebraic manipulation - one implies the other.

3. Sep 20, 2010

### Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Re: E=mc^2...

I believe he is mistaken. I'm not sure where to look, but im almost certain E=MC^2 has been proven.

4. Sep 21, 2010

### your_friend

Re: E=mc^2...

he says E=mc^2 is proven.

but there is no proof(experiment) of M=E/C^2, so its not fully proved to be true.

we can turn matter into energy but not vice versa.

something like that.

5. Sep 21, 2010

### Pengwuino

Re: E=mc^2...

Might want to ask those people at CERN what they think they're doing then. Pair production anyone?

6. Sep 21, 2010

### cepheid

Staff Emeritus
Re: E=mc^2...

I'm sorry but this is nonsense. The person in post #2 had it right. The equation you are referring to describes the relationship between the rest mass and the rest energy of a particle (meaning the energy it has even when it is not moving -- in other words, the energy that it has simply by virtue of having mass).

7. Sep 21, 2010

### Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Re: E=mc^2...

There is plenty of proof. Any of the work at the major particle accelerators around the world would easily demonstrate this.

8. Sep 21, 2010

### Frannas

Re: E=mc^2...

Just look at the sun, it is a continuous proof of E=mc^2.