Open Culture - Latest Comments in E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula

Re: E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula

socratus — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 06:25:43 -0000

During our crossing, Einstein explained his theory
to me every day, and by the time we arrived I was fully
convinced he understood it.
/ Chaim Weizmann, 1921
after he escorted Einstein to the United States./

===.

Re: E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula

WONG SWEE LOKE — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:52:12 -0000

I AGAIN DECODE UNCLE EINSTEIN
E=Mc＾2/MacCabe.

Signaecher: HIRH. 1Ti Wong Swee Loke

Re: E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula

socratus — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:31:13 -0000

Where does strange E= Mc^2 come from?
1.-
In 1905 Einstein asked:
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”
As he realized the answer was:
“ Yes, it depends on its energy E= Mc^2 ”
So, Einstein said that E= Mc^2 comes from inertia
2 -
In 1928 Dirac said that E= Mc^2 comes from vacuum
and can be as positive as negative too
3 -
Sometimes E= Mc^2 can have ‘rest’ parameter and
sometimes can be ‘active’ and can destroy cities like
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Why E= Mc^2 is so stange?
Nobody gives answer
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============.

Re: E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula

socratus — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:30:26 -0000

Going back to the Einstein’s question.

In his Miracle 1905 Einstein wrote the Fourth paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
And as a postscript to his forth, the Fifth paper:
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”
Some months later he realized the answer :
‘ Yes, inertia depends on its energy E= Mc^2.
The Electrodynamics Bodies in inertial movement have
energy E= Mc^2 - ( hidden energy E= Mc^2)’
#
The same Einstein’s question in a little detail interpretation:
“Does the inertia of a body ( for example: of a light quanta
or of an electron) depend upon its energy content E=Mc^2 ?”
Thinking logically, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.
When new question arise:
How is possible to understand the connection
between E=Mc^2 and the ‘ inertia of a body’ ?
============== . .
P.S.
Someone wrote to me:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
! !
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
=========================. .

Re: E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula

socratus — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:36:10 -0000

Why physicists don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?

According to SRT rest mass and rest energy have equivalent
meaning: E= Mc^2 or M= Ec^2.
Why SRT and Quantum theory use word:’ rest mass /energy E= Mc^2 ‘
and don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E= Mc^2 ’ ?

When somebody says ‘ the particle in the rest . . .’, then we
can image that particle was going maybe to sleep, maybe
to have a cup of coffee . . . . etc.
That a strange terminology the physicists use.
======== .
My opinion.

In Classic physics there is ‘ potential energy’ and
there is ‘ kinetic energy’.
And „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of
Energy/ Mass" connects them together.

In Quantum physics the ’rest mass/enegy’ looks as a static factor.
I think that there is problem here.
Because in QT there is ’rest mass/enegy E=Mc^2’ and
there is active / kinetic energy E=hf. But how „The Law of
Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
can unite them together nobody explains.

In other words:
Dont know how to explain transforms the potenial
mass/enegy E=Mc^2 into the active / kinetic energy E=hf
the physicsts began to use new terminology and new words.
================== . .
Socratus.
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Sci...
===================== . .

Re: E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula

socratus — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:32:27 -0000

Re: E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula

socratus — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:36:10 -0000

Why physicists don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?

According to SRT rest mass and rest energy have equivalent
meaning: E= Mc^2 or M= Ec^2.
Why SRT and Quantum theory use word:’ rest mass /energy E= Mc^2 ‘
and don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E= Mc^2 ’ ?

When somebody says ‘ the particle in the rest . . .’, then we
can image that particle was going maybe to sleep, maybe
to have a cup of coffee . . . . etc.
That a strange terminology the physicists use.
======== .
My opinion.

In Classic physics there is ‘ potential energy’ and
there is ‘ kinetic energy’.
And „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of
Energy/ Mass" connects them together.

In Quantum physics the ’rest mass/enegy’ looks as a static factor.
I think that there is problem here.
Because in QT there is ’rest mass/enegy E=Mc^2’ and
there is active / kinetic energy E=hf. But how „The Law of
Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
can unite them together nobody explains.

In other words:
Dont know how to explain transforms the potenial
mass/enegy E=Mc^2 into the active / kinetic energy E=hf
the physicsts began to use new terminology and new words.
================== . .
Socratus.
http://www.worldnpa.org/php...
===================== . .

Re: E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula

socratus — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:32:27 -0000

Why physicists don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?

In Classic physics there is ‘ potential energy’ and
there is ‘ kinetic energy’.
And „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of
Energy/ Mass" connects them together.