can anyone give a theoritical proof of e=mc2?
546224
Energy = force x distance\n=>  Energy = (mass x acceleration) x Distance\n=>  Energy = mass x acceleration x Distance\n=>  Energy = mass x (speed / time) x Distance\n=>  Energy = mass x speed x (Distance/time)\n=>  Energy = mass x speed x speed\n=>  Energy = mass x (speed)²
1057842
go to this site to have all your doubts cleared\n\n\nhttp://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/newtlaws/efar.html
475765
oh, wow, this is a physics question.\n\nto start, we remember E = mc^2\nthe problem gives 4 grams matter and 2 grams antimatter.\nmy solution would be that 2 grams of matter and 2 grams of antimatter annihilate to produce 4c^2 (2 + 2 = 4) energy.\nthe excess 2 grams of matter remains unaffected.\nthe answer is D.
368323
E=MC2 doesn't talk about radiation.  It is about energy.  Nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors work off of the same principle.  Just in nuclear reactors, the reaction is controlled and made safe, and in bombs, the energy is released all at once.  When an atom is "split", the total mass of the origional atom and the neutron that splits it is more than the pieces that it breaks into.  That difference becomes heat energy, and the E=MC2 tells you how much energy.  The radiation that everyone associates with it comes before and after the nuclear reaction, when the nuclear fuel and daughter products (the pieces the atom split into) decay and emit various forms of radiation, depending on what is decaying.  E=MC2 doesn't talk about this part of the process, just about the moment the atom actually splits.  To reverse the process and convert energy into mass is mainly theoretical, though it is possible.  Lab conditions have achieved microscopicly small results.  This is the process that the transporters and replicators use on Star Trek.
192787
In its original form, the formula is\n\nE^2 = m^2 * c^4 + p^2 * c^2\n\nwhere E is the energy of the particle, m is its rest mass, p is its momentum and c is the speed of light.  If we're only concerned with how much energy is bound up in a certain mass, we say the mass is not moving and its momentum is zero (p = 0).  If this is the case:\n\nE^2 = m^2 * c^4 + (0)^2 * c^2\n\nE^2 = m^2 * c^4\n\nTake the square root of both sides and we get:\n\nE = mc^2\n\nThe full formula, with the momentum term included, works if we want to find the momentum of a photon.  For photons, m=0, so E = pc, or p = E/c.  \n\nEither way, the full form of the mass/energy equivalence formula is useful if something is at rest, or moving with a certain momentum.  E = mc^2  only works if the object is at rest.
27171
Its actually derived from Maxwell's Wave Equations, see source. Its too complex and requires mathematic symbols, so I can't type it here.
1073443
e=mc2 is the Eienstein's famous equation of relativity. This equation only applies to very tiny particles, who can move with the speed of light. 'c' here is the speed of light which is a constant quantity. 'm' is the mass of the tiny parrticle.\nWhen a tiny particle moves with a velocity which is the square of velocity of light, it produces energy.\n\nSo, you might wonder why the solar energy is so poweful that we can even run a car.
895733
Energy=Mass * (speed of light)^2
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! :)
1156590
E = energy\nm = mass\nc^2 = speed of light squared\nMass and energy are equivalent.\nThis is a part of theory of relativity of Albert Einstein.\n\nDuring nuclear fission and fusion about 1% mass disappears and an equivalent amount of energy comes free.\n\nDuring annihilisation all mass 'changes' into energy.\nDuring creation of an electron and positron the inverse happens.
103563
Curiouscat is way kewl.....good answer on her part.\n\nE = mc^2 has been proven valid over and over again. Altho, in science, everything is theory, because someone may come along and find a flaw or correction.\n\nHowever up the present, this equation is rock solid.
154286
Hound, did you intend this:\nE=Ea+Eb = (m^2) * (c^4) + (p^2) * (c^2)\nThis makes E = Ea^2 + Eb^2, no?\n\nAlso, an alternate, simple-minded, non-relativistic answer to why does KE = .5MV^2:\nE=F*D (Energy, Force, Distance)\nF=M*A (M is Mass, A is Acceleration)\nE=M*A*D \nD=.5*A*T^2 (T is time)\nV=A*T\nE=M*A*.5*A*(V/A)^2=.5*M*V^2
653703
The only way to prove this formula is to conduct an experiment. For the theory, recall that current density j is the fundamental quantity in Ohm's law. Also you will require the Boltzmann energy distribution.
819996
T1=m1*a, no matter are there m2 & m3 or not.\nT2=(m1+m2)*a, no matter whether m1 & m2 are connected with a string or are in one lump, the presence of m3 being unimportant too.
339047
It is just a reference to E=mc^2.  It can be through fission or fusion, so yes you are surely correct.
394861
I have no idea. But Steven Hawking says we cant travel back in time, and Einstein showed that hitting the speed of light with a mass is pretty unlikely. But that has no effect on the massless.\n\nAnd E=MC2 is just the rest energy of a particle of mass M and has no time travel implications.\n\nI know Cal-tech has some research in this field... look into it.
987744
Depending on what you have to use it for I agree whit Answers, but it isn’t as simple as that and it is really a theory, but here goes:\nWe live in a 3-dimensional world, which physics calls "3-space." But there is also spacetime, or 4-space, or the "4th dimension." Then suddenly comes this amazing new knowledge that time itself is actually compressed energy. And it is energy which is compressed by exactly the same factor by which matter is considered compressed energy: the speed-of-light-squared!\nSo we have a new companion to the famous E=mc2. It is now paired with E=tc2 (where t is actually "delta-t," or change in time). Or (amaze your family and friends and) say:\n"E equals em-cee-squared"\nand\n"E equals delta-tee-cee-squared" \nI am not fully up to speed whit all this part of physics but I think this is what you are asking about !