English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-01 11:21:28 · 18 answers · asked by blake_hanson_2005 2 in Science & Mathematics Physics

E=Energy
M=Mass
c2=vaccume or speed of light

2007-01-01 11:25:55 · update #1

18 answers

No

2007-01-01 11:39:28 · answer #1 · answered by Sheen 4 · 0 1

Not so far.

If anyone gives you an emphatic NO for an answer, they just aren't remembering their history too well.

Imagine, for a moment, if you were to ask, say 150 years ago, if Newton's mechanics formula for kinetic energy was wrong (E=1/2MV^2).
Everyone, including the brightest scientists, would have answered, "Of course not."

Well, it's wrong.
Given this equation, if the rest mass equals zero, the energy also equals zero.
We now know from Einstein's famous E=MC^2 and numerous applications of the equality of mass and energy that this simply isn't true.

Einstein's formula is just barely over 100 years old - Newton's formula stood the test of time for over 300 years - and he was wrong!

2007-01-01 12:22:06 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0 0

No. the proof is seen every day in accellerators and in your TV's picture tube. Basically the Energy mass relationship confirms that space time is not a Euclidean vector space which follows linear frame of reference transformations, but is a 4 dimentional vector space which follows the Lorentz transformation. This transformation was known before Eienstein was around, and is basic to Electromagnetics. What is really being said here is the the speed of light is a constant. That is a fact first demonstrated by Michelson well before Eienstein's time, and is demonstrated daily in electrmagnetic beam devices, including you TV set's picture tube

2007-01-01 12:03:41 · answer #3 · answered by walter_b_marvin 5 · 1 0

No!! This equation was sort of an unexpected consequence of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity... it demonstrates the nature of the relationship between matter and energy, that is with just a small amount of matter you actually have a huge amount of energy... This equation has been around for over 100 years now and no one has been able to say "It's wrong".... seems like somebody would have figured it out by now if it were wrong.

2007-01-01 11:52:32 · answer #4 · answered by eggman 7 · 0 1

I honestly haven't learned much about this yet, but I honestly don't think he was wrong. But anyone can make mistakes.
I only know that the c is the speed of light, the speed of an electron and 2 1/2 times around the world, which is 186,000 miles per second.

2007-01-01 11:27:21 · answer #5 · answered by goodbyexapathy 2 · 1 1

No. Einstein was a self realized soul. And he himself mentioned that he is getting all this knowledge from a higher spritual source (i.e. The God). The equation is correct. And the proof is the nuclear reactors or weapons, where we convert material into energy. All stars and our Sun are also converting material into energy that is why they are so hot. They are sources of heat and light. Therefore, our Sun support life on Earth.

2007-01-01 11:29:26 · answer #6 · answered by Sahaja Yogi 2 · 0 1

About 20% of the electrical power generated in the USA and about 90% of the electrical power generated in France is based on E=MC^2.

2007-01-01 18:37:13 · answer #7 · answered by Holden 5 · 0 0

E is energy, equals Mass times the Speed of Light (183,000 miles per second of time) times it's self or 183,000 X 183,000. The result is a very big number. Was HE wrong? If he is, no one has given proof.
Pi = infinity, can you prove this to be wrong?

2007-01-01 15:49:21 · answer #8 · answered by blueridgemotors 6 · 0 0

Nope, the equation has done some miraculous things. But the equation only deals with the huge masses while Einstein never really paid much attention to quantum physics.

2007-01-01 11:30:17 · answer #9 · answered by Eh? 2 · 0 2

both yes and no, you see the equation was mpstly derivied from other equations which were mostly limit equations and with all limit equations they are approximate values. but at the same time its like knowing a varible but at the same time not ever knowing what it is. but with this he did allot of subsitution and got the limit of approaching the speed of light.

but it has been proving correct for the most part with nuclear experiments, but at the same time this equation doesn't work with all nuclear reactions and thus a similar equation which is slightly more acurate was made, so to answer your question yes and no

2007-01-01 11:26:47 · answer #10 · answered by Flaming Pope 4 · 0 1

No, of course not. If you think he was, Physical Review Letters would love to hear from you. Good luck.

2007-01-01 11:27:25 · answer #11 · answered by eri 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers