Can anyone explain why (speed of light) ^2 ???

can anyone explain why (speed of light) ^2 ???

practically speaking why and how would that be so? Secondly, and only if you can establish the above... how in the heck did Eisenstein come to realize it?

My worrisome fear is that its just a trick of mathematico's and no one on this planet can (or will be able to) properly asplain.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence
hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
discord.gg/MRZghYV
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Cause [eqn]\sqrt{E}=\sqrt{m}c[/eqn]

tl;dr there is a direct relationship between mass and energy.

Read the fucking Wikipedia page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

Einstein wasn't the first to observe this, just the first one to explain it accurately fitting with all current understanding of physics.

It's not a trick of mathematics because in physics and other related sciences you are always looking for a value and solving. In mathematics, it can be arbitrary and you're just looking for a proof that a relationship can be true.

Not op but I have the same question.
I know that there's a relationship between energy and mass. but why is it c squared and not say c cubed? I've always wondered how einstein arrived at his exact formula.

yeah, brofist, I'm OP.
what this user says. no one can explain it, right?

Take a course that covers relativity and it will become clear. You solve for relativistic momentum, then solve for relativistic energy using the result (Kinetic Energy specifically).

When you solve the equation this comes out.

if you google "derivation of e=mc2" then pretty much any result on the first page will give you a good place to start

it's not like it's a secret or anything - just look it up..

can't explain it either, WHY c^2 ???

I'm looking for logical, practical words, not equations, see OP.

another guy who can't explain... see no one on the earth can and that's my worrisome fear.

Momentum = mass x velocity
Kinetic energy = mass x velocity^2

If you're moving at c, this becomes
E = mc^2

The full equation includes energy from inertial mass too. This is the most important result of the paper because it explains how something appears to gain mass (energy) as it travels faster.

the distinction between the two masses is left out of popsci because it is confusing.

Why not? I think you're thinking way too hard here. Starting from the very beginning, we're assuming that some kind of object is moving that must be accounted for by light speed relativism. In order to get some sort of energy which must be in some sort of energy unit (Joule = kgm^2/s^2), we typically must integrate our velocity.

Notice that this math is in no way different than it is for classical physics (K=1/2mv^2), it's just that you must consider rest mass vs. kinetic mass. Your units if your velocity (in our case the speed of light) is cubed, you don't have an energy. Unit analysis goes a long way.

>Kinetic energy = mass x velocity^2
>If you're moving at c, this becomes
>E = mc^2

you do realize that the absolutely CENTRAL AND ESSENTIAL theme of relativity is relativistic mass giving rise to relativistic KE etc, where the entire fucking point is that KE=mv^2 is wrong at relativistic speeds?

Not only are you completely wrong but you're in the fucking negatives for helpfulness

Yes, he's wrong.

However; the actual kinetic energy equation still has m(some_velocity)^2 terms because you still have to integrate your velocity term, ds/dt.

Try reading the whole post next time.
I specifically said that relativistic mass was the most important part, which is funny because it's the part that's left out of the equation e=mc^2.

It's not lost on me; the entire point was to show to OP that the units you ultimately have aren't arbitrary.

hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf

Here you go senpai. A translation of Einsteins original paper, which can be used to find e=mc^2.


I'm pretty pleb-tier at physics, but I've read some stuff on SR, GR, and Einstein, so I'll give a lay persons description, but I may get things wrong.

Essentially, if light is a wave, it needs a medium to travel through. This was called the luminiferous aether.

Experiments failed to prove this aether, since light travelled at c (in their respective medium) in every direction.

Einstein (unaware of the relevant work of Lorentz at the time) took the speed of light as a constant in every frame.

By assuming light travels at a constant speed, regardless of reference frame, you can write equations which allow distance, time, and mass, to be different in two reference frames that have relative velocity.

Through some sweet math tricks, like using pythagorean theorem (a^2 +b^2 = c^2) you can show that "a" is relative velocity, "b" is the speed of light, to find how time is different in each reference frame. This trick results in a c^2 term, that you see in e=mc^2.

Now, even further, the m and the e are found when looking at kinetic energy of a particle based on reference frame. Since time is different based on that c^2 and v^2 thing, then you find that mass appears different based on the frame, m1 is from one frame, m2 i the other, and the m in e=mc^2 is the difference between m1 and m2. When you write an equation to express this, you can cancel out a bunch of terms and get e=mc^2

If you're actually interested in science and math, and find Veeky Forums has too much shitposting and not enough worthwhile content, we have a discord chat where you can talk about science and math and get help.

Here is the link if you want to check it out;
and if you want, post a message saying you're OP, so I know who you are
discord.gg/MRZghYV

there's substance behind every mathematical trick

fag

ah fuck, i didnt realise you were a retarded fisherman

>Eisenstein
good shitpost op

>2016
>still talks of relativistic mass