Is E=mc^2 Fully Proven or Still Up for Debate?

[your_friend]

so this guy who says he's 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.

 

[cjl]

What?

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

 

[Drakkith]

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

 

[your_friend]

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.

 

[Pengwuino]

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.

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

 

[cepheid]

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.

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).

 

[Drakkith]

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.

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

 

[Frannas]

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