E = m^c2 ---OR--- E= m^c2 - X ?????

Question

I was just messing around, like I do, & actually going through the equation Einstein derived.

E = m ^c2 <--------- I think that's wrong...

There is something wrong about this. Sure the formula is definately a MAX form. The highest speed ever is light-speed (that we know of). Physically speaking, it cannot be multiplied. But mathematically, it can be multiplied w/ itself.

Light-speed is nearly an indefinate figure, by itself results in a # that could be set = to infinity-- applicable for the big bang (which I don't support), but never for making an atomic bomb explosion.

Multiplied w/ c2, this material would logically make the whole Earth explode. I'd say the correct formula for the atomic bomb would be:

E = mc2 - X

X being a factor. Simply because we don't need c2 to make a bomb. Such an explosion would obliviate the sun system, galaxy, or universe. Instead, X substitutes a given situation, or another equation(s) set up on the lunar level.

What do you think??

------------Rob :)~

Sorry.. I put the "times" in the wrong place.. instead substitute (mc^2) for the mistakes...sorry...

indefinate as in non-constant; non-absolute.

How do you even know if it's 2 dimensional in space? Why couldn't it be 3? Wouldn't it be more than 3?

Can you even name all the axis' in space? Technically, I'd see it as

E = mc^x^y^z - X^2

x, y, and z are exponential variables to the dimensional aspects of light speed and considerable conditions in space-time.

X is like the above, and may or may not be squared...No matter what, even if it's not, the exponent would just calculate a more precise figure.

Answer 1

You are on the right track, but it's not the mc^2 that needs modifying.

The problem with most energy sources is inefficiency. In a gasoline engine, for example, gas goes in, gets ignited by the engine, but most of the original mass gets expelled as exhaust. Only a tiny fraction of the mass of the gas gets converted to energy.

But if you were to add up the mass of the gas burned, subtract the mass of the carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other exhaust products, you would get a tiny difference in mass. And that mass, times c^2, gives you the energy produced by the ignition of the gas. So "m" is different than you think.

And of that, most of the energy gets 'wasted' as heat or friction, and not converted to kinetic energy to move the car, so really, the energy produced is many times more than the car's kinetic energy. So "E" may be different than what you were thinking.

But you are right. The amount of energy even in a tiny object is huge. And if that 'small mass' was 100% converted to energy, there would be serious destruction.

By the way, an matter/anti-matter explosion is an example of an energy source that would have close to this 100% effeciency, which may be why it's a science fiction favorite for powering a spacecraft.

Answer 2

First off, I the equation should actually read "E = mc^2"... In words we can explain this as the energy of an object is equal to its mass multiplied by (speed of light in a vacuum)^2. The equation, in principle, gives us a relationship between the mass and energy of an object, with the speed of light the conversion factor.

The speed of light is roughly 300 000km/sec, which is indeed quite fast, but by no means an "indefinite figure". It can be measured on both macro and quantum scale.

As this is not a question on Big Bang theory, I will skip that part. I would like to comment on the last part, though:

During a nuclear explosion (actually any explosion, for that matter) mass is converted into energy. This energy is in the form of heat, sound, light etc. The conversion into these forms of energy from the mass-state is never completely efficient. A lot of factors contribute to the process not being efficient, with the major contribution coming from the fact that the mass is converted to other forms of mass (byproducts being created). I am not a physicist, so I would not be able to give a definitive answer on what the eventual equation would look like... But my guess would be along the lines of E = kmc^2, with k being some factor involving the efficiency of the process.

It's not so much a question of "not needing c^2 to make a bomb"... We just can not get away from that constant. It is a given. The rest of the equation is where we tweak to make things go boom!

A good comparison to the above equation would be the format of the Newtonian equation E = 0.5(mv^2) with E being the kinetic energy of an object, m its mass and v its speed.

Also, in the most simple form, all the variables are in scalar form. We are looking at absolute values, and not concidering any direction.

Answer 3

Hey that's quite the pile of bullshit you've got there, you could write for the sci-fi channel

It's E = (m) (c^2)
not E = (m)^ (c*2)

also this is a crude representation of the actual equations.

I'm trying to find something else coherent enough to adress. c can be multiplied... times two, times itself... that gives you another, less familiar constant
SO you could say E = mk where k just so happens to equal the speed of light squarred. There's nothing wrong with that.
The big idea was that little mass times big number equals a lot of energy.

Light speed is not indefinate... it has a given speed in a vacuum and in all sorts of other substances.

E = Mc2 - X (or E = mc^2) is nonsensical. X is a factor of what? Something is substracted as some of the energy is used to move things like the casing and the air... but I don't see what you're getting at here.

Answer 4

the equation is Energy

Energy = E
Mass = M
C = Speed of light

The equation is used to determine the amount of energy from a given reaction. That is all. C is not infintite - it has a value of 3.0 * 10^8 meters/sec.

how ever all energy does not convert equally - some is lost by heat, some by sound, some by pressure, some of the matter may not even be converted. So the equation gives you the potential energy of a object.

I dont really follow your logic. E=mc^2 does not make any assumptions about c at all.

Answer 5

First, c is not indefinite or infinite. It is exactly 299,792,458 meters/second. Yes, c^2 is a a very large number, but it's not easy to convert matter into energy. Fission and fusion reactions convert minuscule amounts of mass into enormous amounts of energy.

E=mc^2 defines the equivalence between matter and energy. When you convert matter into energy, that's what you get. You can't claim a different result without explaining how the missing stuff snuck out of the universe.

Answer 6

First of all, the equation is:

E = M C^2

next, it has very little to do with the yield of an atomic bomb. As I understand it, the energy efficiency of a FUSION reaction doesn't even approach 5% of it's potential by mass, and a fission reaction much less so.

Also, you can't assume C as an infinite number. It is a qualifiable (though very high) value. (299,792,458 meters/second).

Answer 7

E=mC^2 is corrrect
E for energy
m for mass
C^2 is the concentration multiplied by itself

multipy mass with the square of a concentration results to energy

Answer 8

The full equation for a moving body is
E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2
where m is the rest mass, p is the momentum, E is the energy, and c is the speed of light.

Answer 9

E= mc^2

Answer 10

no..you're wrong....light speed is not an indefinite figure, we know the maximum and minimum of how fast it can travel....it's not infinite, you might want to triple check your facts on this..

the formula has already been proven by many scientists.

by the way the c in the equation is the light constant, it's just a measurement....light's speed fluctuates depending on what it's medium is.