Vereinsamt said:
sorry maybe I didn't understant your point.. WHY its not possible to put energy in the form mass?
I didn't say it isn't possible to make them equivalent, but you cannot do this with algebra. You cannot add things with different dimensions. For example, how do you add i + l, if "i" is current in amperes, and "l" is length in meters? Such a mathematical operation is MEANINGLESS physically. That is what you were trying to do. "m" is mass (usually in kg), and "E" is energy, in Joules, or eV, etc.
When cosmologists say that the "total energy" of the universe is a constant, what they mean is that "mc^2 + E" is a constant, where "E" is NOT the rest mass energy, but rather energy in forms OTHER than the rest mass. This is because "mc^2" is ALREADY taken care off in the first term of that sum! What you were doing was DOUBLE COUNTING something that has already been taken care of. Furthermore, you were taking "m" literally, meaning you took the mass and then ADDED that to an energy by doing "m + mc^2". This is wrong.
you mean that E in einstein equation is not the same E that we see in the universe?
You need to tell me what you understand as "E" in einstein equation. The relativistic Einstein energy equation has a MORE GENERAL FORM, which is
E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
The first term is what most people know, but this is only the REST MASS energy. One simply cannot use E=mc^2 and let E be anything one likes, because it has been DEFINED in the derivation that this is the rest mass energy. This is exactly the first term in "m + E", where "m" here is implied to be "mc^2".
Please note that just because the SYMBOL looks the same, it doesn't mean that it carries the SAME meaning everywhere. You cannot learn physics in bits and pieces like this, or else you arrive at rather puzzling conclusion as what we have now. You need to clearly understand the definition of various symbols and equations that were used, or else they make no physical sense.
Zz.