E=m(c*c), if m=1 then E=(c*c). if high energy is provided then can we reach the speed of light?
81056
ja :), that's a good one. E=mc^2 talks about the equivalence between matter and energy; c is just the constant that joins them both ..you won't attain a c ¨velocity¨out of it ; you'll just have to use \n E=mc^2/(sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) ( Is it Lorenz transf?) and I think Xav was pretty clear with his explanation! :)
750911
E=mc^2 is a formula not a problem.\n\nE stands for energy\nM stands for mass\nC stands for speed of light\n\nwith it you can figure out how much energy is in a given amount of matter.
1084318
Actually, the way modern physicists think of it, the question doesn’t quite make sense.  The problem is the “traveling at the speed of light” part, because one of the conclusions of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is that nothing can travel that fast.\n\nInterestingly, though, its was consideration of a similar question that started Einstein down the path toward relativity… Light is best described by Maxwell’s Equations, which predict that any experiement will measure same speed for light in a vacuum.  When Einstein thought about traveling at the speed of light, he realized that there must be a problem.  In fact, Maxwell’s Equations don’t allow for a “standing wave” solution, which is what a light wave would look like if you were traveling at the speed of light. \n\nSo Einsten took things back to basics, which is what he was good at.  Let’s start with what he actually said… His Special Theory of Relativity started with two postulates (or assumptions): 1) that the laws of physics are observed to be the same in any non-accelerated “reference frame” and 2) that the speed of light (c) is observed to be the same for all observers.\n\nThe first assumption basically says that as long as you’re traveling at a constant speed, all your experiments will give the same results.  That seems reasonable.  But the thing about the speed of light always being the same sounds a little odd: the Michelson-Morley experiment (and others) had detected no change in the speed of light when measured from a moving frame of reference, however, and as I already mentioned, Maxwell’s Equations yield a specific value for the velocity of light.\n\nStarting from there, Einstein worked out how to add velocities together, and it comes out to be not simple addition, but a fraction that never gets larger than c. Basically, what happens is that the measurement of time and distance changes, so a physical object (e.g., a spaceship) can never achieve lightspeed.\n\nSo”  That’s a long-winded way of saying that your headlights themselves can’t travel at the speed of light.  If we want to think about them traveling very, very close to the speed of light, however, we realize that the light they emit still travels at lightspeed (as measured by the fast-moving headlights themselves), so they stil work the same way headlights would work on a car traveling much slower.\n\n\nRyan Wyatt\nRose Center for Earth & Space\nNew York, New York
588727
The equation E=MC2 is the derivation from Einstein's relativity theory. this is not a case of the classic mechanics. this equation explains the value of energy of an atom. \n\nE-> Energy\nM-> mass of the atom\nC-> speed of the light.\n\nin this only speed of the light is constant. the mass differs by frame to frame in accordance to theory of relativity. so the energy of the atoms also differs with frame to frame. but this equation is not fully correct and Lorentz had made corrections to it. \n\nAnybody who can prove this equation as a total wrong thing with strong evidences will be announced as the greatest of the universe..
160198
This is a very interesting question and most people don't understand it.\nTHE value of the speed of light  is "C" in vaccuum IRRESPECTIVE of the refernce frame. Light will travel at velocity C (relative to you) even if you are going at C. \n\nSounds crazy? This is at the fundamental of Einstien's assumption which was later proved right. Common sense is often wrong.
687262
Light doesn't accelerate to that speed, it just propogates at that speed period.  Besides, F = ma says you need a mass to have an acceleration, and light, or photons, have zero mass.
889920
Yes, if it's converted to energy.  E=mc^2
872993
E=m c^2\nEnergy=Mass &#92;times (speed of light)^2
477007
energy = matter at the speed of light celeritas squared
1063094
Being accelerated past the speed of light is impossible because of the nature of momentum.  It is not simply mass times velocity, but mass times velocity times gamma.  Gamma is a factor which adjusts for the fact that as an object's velocity increases, it has more kinetic energy, which, because E=mc^2, is mass.  Gamma is equal to 1/(1-v^2/c^2), where v = velocity and c is speed of light. As the velocity approaches C, v^2/c^2 becomes 1, and Gamma becomes 1/(1-1), or 1/0.  This means a massive particle traveling at the speed of light has infinite momentum.  It takes infinite force to accelerate to infinite momentum, so breaking the speed of light (for a macroscopic object with mass) is, according to current theory and law, impossible.\n\nHowever, other avenues for an artificial increase of speed are possible.  You mention a lot of them, and not much is really known about them, but it could be possible to warp space-time to let us effectively travel faster than light (like the warp drive in Star Trek).
974824
E is energy.\nm is mass.\nc squared is the speed of light squared.\n\nThey had a TV show on PBS about Albert Einstein yesterday. You just missed it! \nE=mc squared is Einstein's "theory of relativity".
895733
Energy=Mass * (speed of light)^2
1168590
Let's look at E = mc^2.\n\nE is energy. It is measured in joules.\nm is mass. It is measured in kilograms.\nc is the speed of light. It is measured in meters per second.\n\nKilograms multiplied by (meters per second)squared are joules. If you don't have a mass multiplied by the square of a velocity (or something with equivalent units), you don't have energy.\n\nThe maximum speed any mass can have is infinitesimally less than the speed of light. c^2 would be the square of that speed.\n\nNow, let's consider the practicalities. Experimentally, we find that, as we accelerate something very close to the speed of light (which is done every day in particle accelerators, for example), it becomes harder and harder to accelerate the closer it gets to the speed of light. E = mc^2 is the energy of a mass at rest; this is where the energy of nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants comes from. As an object moves, its energy is multiplied by a factor usually abbreviated with the Greek letter gamma; its value is:\n\ngamma = 1/[1 - (v/c)^2]^1/2\n\nSo it's 1 over the square root of [1 minus (v/c)squared].\n\nAs v becomes closer and closer to the speed of light, v/c becomes closer and closer to 1, the denominator of the fraction becomes closer and closer to zero, and gamma becomes larger and larger. If v were to equal c, gamma would be infinite. This is why you can't accelerate any massive object to the speed of light - it would take an infinite amount of energy. \n\nSo, you may ask, what about photons? They go at the speed of light, don't they? Indeed they do. They manage this because their mass is zero, and they can never travel at any speed other than the speed of light.\n\nIncidentally, it is indeed true that m = E/c^2; this is often useful in physics calculations.
915960
According to Einstein's relativity, for matter (..mass) to move AT the speed of light would require infinite energy to gain that speed, and the mass would increase to infinity, both things being impossible.
411862
According to Einstein's theories, if you took a particle with a non-zero mass mi on the earth, and accelerated it to a speed v respect to the earth, then the mass would increase according to something like m = mi/(1-v^2/c^2), where c is the speed of light.  There may be a square root in there.  The point is that the mass becomes infinite as v approaches c, because the denominator goes to zero.  As the mass increases it takes more and more energy to accelerate it, so that the amount of energy required getting to the speed of light becomes infinite.  Clearly, there is not an infinite amount of energy available for this experiment.\n\nBut, if Einstein was wrong then it might be possible to do.
38506
yikes, everyone is giving you the wrong formula. it's not e=mc^2. that would be converting energy into mass and back which is done like when subatomic particles crash into each other really fast and such... the mass dialation formula you are looking for is \nm'= m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)\nwhere m' is the mass you would be not moving at the high velocities, m is the mass moving at the high velocities, v is the velocity you're traveling at, c is the speed of light, sqrt means we're square rooting everything in those parenthesis, and ^2 means squared. if you were to plug numbers in for velocity, you can see that this effect is absolutely neglagible unless you are moving very very close to the speed of light. and it is impossible to actually move at the speed of light, because then v^2/c^2 would be 1, and 1-1=0 so you would have a 0 in the denominator of that equation, which is impossible.  that equation is actually very interesting in that it is part of the lorentz factor which also effects time and length. in fact, as you increase speeds close to the speed of light, not only does mass increase, but time moves slower for you and length shrinks.  I've had to derive these equations in physics class, it's very interesting to do it yourself and come up with the equation proving that things like velocity, mass, and length are affected by velocity.  but again, you need to be going very very close to the speed of light for the velocity to have any effect on these things.\n\nas far as practicality, instances of the lorentz factor have been proven. there are these particles that have a certain lifespan before they disintigrate.  so now, we know how fast they are going and we know how long before they disintegrate, so theoretically, we should easily be able to figure out how much distance they cover before they disintigrate, right? but somehow, the particles go a lot farther than they should... if we plug their velocity into the lorentz transformation formula however, and put in how far they should travel (but don't), they we come up with how far they actually do travel.  this proves the validity of the lorentz factor.\n\nthere is no practical application of the mass increase since objects of great mass would require way too much energy to accelerate to speeds great enough to see this effect, so therefore it can't really happen.. if ever it did though, the only thing this mass expansion would serve to do would be to limit time travel. i mean, if time is slowing down for us at high speeds, technically we could make it slow down so much so that it would be going slower for you than everyone else and so you could basically travel forward in time. but if your mass was expanding and length shrinking, then either the pressure would kill you, or your blood would get so dense it couldnt carry oxygen to your cells and that would kill you, so there goes the time travel thing.
68493
Energy is defined as being equivalent to Mass times the Speed of Light, Squared...\n\nE=MC(2)