In 1905 Einstein wrote a paper where he asked: "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?" From this question, he wrote a 3 page paper where he derived the now-famous 𝐸=𝑚𝑐^2 He proved that energy and mass are interchangeable. This simple equation revolutionized our understanding of physics. A simple yet amazing paper:
Einstein's proof of E = m c^2 is pathetic. He copied this work from elsewhere and didn't understand what he copied. If anybody can rigorously prove that E = m c^2 is a reasonable and meaningful approximation for certain cases, he or she should draw a 3D picture of this phenomena over time evolution. Go ahead. Do this. This is my challenge to the physics or any other community worldwide. Flow well.
That formula (which postulates that a tremendous energy can be created from a light mass) may turn out to be a curse for mankind.
Everything begins with “a very good question” … What? How? … but, Why?!
V cool. Thanks for posting!
Risk executive with 22 years experience in | Enterprise Risk | Market Risk | Stress Testing | Sustainability | Regulatory Compliance ➥ Leading analytics teams to solve problems in sustainability and finance
1moI once attended a lecture which asked which of the following is how Einstein would frame it: 1. E = mc^2 2. E_0 = mc^2 3. E = m_0c^2 4. E_0 = m_0c^2 #3 makes no sense but the others are interesting to think about since they lead to discussions about whether to think of mass as a momentum-dependent quantity or an invariant. I believe the speaker landed on #2: mass is invariant and does not require a subscript. And the equation describes the rest energy of a particle, hence the subscript on the E. It was a far more interesting, discursive lecture than it sounds!