Curiosity about E=mc squared

 Posts: 1985
 Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
 Location: The Domain of Confusion
Curiosity about E=mc squared
It is said that E=mc with a little 2 just above the "c" indicating that something is squared. My question is, what is squared? Is the result of the multiplication of "m" and "c" squared or is the c squared first and then multiplied by m?
Re: Curiosity about E=mc squared
Just the c  it's E= m x c x c.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 10:42 pm It is said that E=mc with a little 2 just above the "c" indicating that something is squared. My question is, what is squared? Is the result of the multiplication of "m" and "c" squared or is the c squared first and then multiplied by m?

 Posts: 1985
 Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
 Location: The Domain of Confusion
Re: Curiosity about E=mc squared
Thanks. Not that I really needed to know that in order to solve any equation I'm working on (as I'm not working on any) but the question did pop into my head when I was looking closely at the problem. I had an epiphany on the Theory of Relativity a few minutes ago that made some things more clear to me but then I hit some roadblocks on other aspects. My mind is touch and go these days. One minute it's thinking and the next minute I'm in "couch potato" mode.
Re: Curiosity about E=mc squared
uwot is right, when you think about the relationship bet matter/mass and energy, it makes since  and constant ratio bet matter and energy  a trillion to one  lest say.
IF the equation were E=(MC)2  then when there is a "big body of mass" then the its equivalent energy would be less then if it were as small partical (the mass of the body in question would be squared)  and so the "c" part would take a smaller part in the eqaution for the big mass than the small tiny partical  and so making atoms "different"  having less "energy" if sitting in a large body, than if in a small partical.
make sense?
IF the equation were E=(MC)2  then when there is a "big body of mass" then the its equivalent energy would be less then if it were as small partical (the mass of the body in question would be squared)  and so the "c" part would take a smaller part in the eqaution for the big mass than the small tiny partical  and so making atoms "different"  having less "energy" if sitting in a large body, than if in a small partical.
make sense?
Re: Curiosity about E=mc squared
that is an excellent question BTW
Re: Curiosity about E=mc squared
thinking about stuff is good. too many don't sadly ;/.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:09 am Thanks. Not that I really needed to know that in order to solve any equation I'm working on (as I'm not working on any) but the question did pop into my head when I was looking closely at the problem. I had an epiphany on the Theory of Relativity a few minutes ago that made some things more clear to me but then I hit some roadblocks on other aspects. My mind is touch and go these days. One minute it's thinking and the next minute I'm in "couch potato" mode.

 Posts: 1985
 Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
 Location: The Domain of Confusion
Re: Curiosity about E=mc squared
sure, i always welcome discussion about "stuff"
Re: Curiosity about E=mc squared
I'll never get this, and I've even read Woit's excellent book about it.
The speed of light is one light year per year. So E=M.
No?
The speed of light is one light year per year. So E=M.
No?
Re: Curiosity about E=mc squared
Thanks, but I'm not really interested. I shouldn't have posted.