If not, please give examples of it in our daily life and how does the equation e=mc2 fall into place then? Givea detailed explanation please.
211587
That version of Einsteins theory of general relativity is only for particles with 0 momentum.  for ones that do wave momentum but no mas it is\nE= pc (p=momentum, c= speed of light)\n\nbut yes, it is only applicable for at the speed of light hence it only has c, the speed of light, and not v, another speed.
417553
No, not really.\n\nEven high school labs now do light experiments that show photons are quanta.  One simple experiment, is with the photometer that emits electrons when struck by light.  The electrons are like billiard balls and the photons are the cue balls striking them to send them on their merry way.\n\nIf light were simply a ray (a force field), the amount of electrons emitted would be proportional to the strength of the light beam.  But they aren't and the number of electrons actually follow a step-function where at a given threshold of light, the electrons suddenly burst forth after none up until that threshold.\n\nThe photon concept, as bundles of energy, is the result of what I would call good physics.  Good physics is physics that starts with the physical phenomenon and then derives equations to explain it.  Bad physics, like string theory, starts with the math and then tries to explain a physical phenomenon, like strings.\n\nAs to your last assertion, think about it...would even physicists, who are renowned for their weird jargon, call something a "matter," which is a synonym for "mass" if it were not a mass?  No, dark matter is a mass...more correctly a mass-energy (due to E = mc^2).  DM accounts for about 96% of all the mass-energy in our known universe.  \n\nUntil just recently, DM has not been observed, which is why they called it dark.  But a recent observation of two galaxies colliding has seen the effects of the dark masses surrounding those two galaxies also colliding.  So, there is now observable evidence that the dark matter exists...the theory has been validated. [See source.]
40942
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.
217172
It is called the equation of time. It isn't really statistics though.
51653
Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, special relativity, and his famous E = m(c^2) equation are four examples of things Einstein did that affect our lives.\n\nThe photoelectric effect explains how light can be converted into energy.  This is very useful for things like solar cells which are used for solar power.\n\nSpecial relativity has to do with the way space and time works and doesn't affect our modern life as much but has implications for space travel.\n\nBrownian motion was important because it confirmed the existance of atoms.  Before Einstein's time atoms were considered to be a "neat idea" but after that they were considered to be a reality.  This has many implications on our modern life because it helped to expand the outburst of technology that has greatly influenced the way we go about our lives.\n\nFinally E=m(c^2) was an offshoot of the theory of relativity and this had several implications the most influential being the atomic bomb.
531058
No, not at all.\n\nProcesses in perfectly stationary nuclei turn mass into energy. For instance, the energy an emitted alpha particle has in alpha decay from a staionary nucleus is reflected by a tiny fall in mass of the nucleus.\n\nConversely, as you accelerate a particle towards the speed of light, more and more of the energy you give to the particle gets converted to mass. In fact, you can never get the particle to the speed of light - its mass will go to infinity first. This is quite measurable in a particle accelerator.
112252
yeah, you get a bit off on a deep tangent towards the end there... but I don't think Einstein asserted anything more than the idea that time, space, and matter are related and not independant.  two systems of matter travelling in wildly different velocities relative to one another also have different processions of time and different masses, from the perspective of the other.  It only applies to things moving close to the speed of light- I think it's the Schroedinger Equation that covers the inter-relation.  But there's no real analogy to it in the observable world, unless you work at a particle accelerator, so I leave it to the doctorates of physics to debate.
26055
No Way Man!  Photon-photon scattering?  Highly dubious.  Photons don't have charge. They don't self-interact, that's why the electro-weak theory works so well... right?\n\nResponse to Dr. Bob's response:\n\nI agree that this process occurs (although a photon that decays into a e+e- pair has to be close to another mass so momentum can be transfered; isolated photons cant decay into e+e-).  But in such a case, would you really say that "one light ray has bounced off another?" I'd say that it was "bouncing" off the electron/positron pairs.  Just semantics I suppose.
117814
Because its the formula that summarizes his relativity theory... meaning energy is mass times the speed of light elevated to the second potence.\n\nThe formula was said the first time when ladies in NYC went to receive Dr. Einstein at the port and one of them made a stupid question.\n\n"Dr. How can you summarize your theory?"\nEinstein said "E=mc^2, have a nice day"
32506
the classical def of the momentum is indeed p=mv, however, for  massless particles, this def no long applies, for the photon for instance, the momentum is given by\np=h/lambda, where h is the planck constant and lambda, the wave length\nIn that case, energy is given by E=hv, v bieng the frequency of the photon (v=c/lambda)
14672
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.
43451
Nope. Ben just got it wrong.\n\nWhen he came up with "positive" and "negative" he wasn't even thinking in terms of current they way we do today. Frankline did have an "fluid theory" of electricity, but it was much different in scope with anything we would think of. It was not until 1897 that the electron was discovered.\n\nSo, Ben, can be forgiven. When he was working he wrote in a letter that "I feel a Want of Terms here and doubt much whether I shall be able to make this intelligible," and he supposed to have come up with a variety of terms in use today:     \n\n    * battery\n    * charge\n    * condensor\n    * conductor\n    * plus\n    * minus\n    * positively\n    * negatively\n    * armature\n\nUsing a positve flow is useful in that it keeps a lot of the quantities positive. (Though I confess, in Physics grad school we always used the electrons moving bit.)\n\nAlso moving protons are good if one wants to use special relativity to show that electricy and magnetism are the same.
487080
This is true in isolated atoms.\n\nIf we put them into the electric fields generated by nearby atoms, especially those of water of crystallisation, the energy levels can change and rearrange the electron orbitals.\n\nTo explain this to our satisfaction would mean solving the equations and getting the answers.  Unfortunately this is known as a many bodied problem and only the simplest of them can be solved.\n\nTake heart in the fact that the energy levels are so close together that we can glibly announce the fact and move on quickly to the next topic!
36741
I didn't give it a thumbs down, and I think the answer is fine as far as it goes.  However, one problem that I noticed is that you have a circular definition.  You said electromagnetic waves are oscillating electric and magnetic waves.  I assume you meant to say electromagnetic waves are oscillating electric and magnetic *fields*, which is correct.
160276
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.
94400
Ashton Family, where did you learn science?  E=mc^2 is a mass to energy conversion equation (incomplete by the way) developed by Einsten.  Nothing in our universe can travel faster the the speed of light.\n\nMessages from neurons travel faster that any other means in the body.  They are electrical impulses and thus travel at slightly slower than light (the neurons have to receive and retransmit the signal).\n\nTo figure out what is correct and why it is the fastest, lets try some logic.  Assume blood flow is the fastest, it must therefore travel faster than electrical impulses.  If this was the case, you'll have friction between the bloody flowing and the veins and arteries carrying them.  Since we don't feel burning sensations in our body this must not be the case.  Thus blood flow is not the fastest.  \n\nHormone diffusion.  Hormones are carried in our blood stream.  And we've already proven that blood flow is not faster than electrical impulses, so hormone diffusion must not travel faster than blood flow, and so hormone diffusion is not the fastest.\n\nMuscle contraction.  This is the result of neuron stimulation.  If muscles could move as fast as electrical impulses, they would be moving at light speed.  Try shaking your hand back and forth as fast as possible.  If you could move your hand at light speed through the air your hands would be burned to a crisp due to the friction.  Since you are unable to perform this function, muscle stimulation is not as fast as electrical impulses and thus again we prove that muscle stimulation is not the fastest communication throughout the body.\n\nWe've eliminated all possibilities except neuron impulse transmission.  We know that this is electrical transmission and we know that it is possible for this to be transmitting at the speed of light.  Therefore this must be the fasted communication through the body.\n\nBy the way the example that someone gave, about feeling heat and jerking away from it.  The time delay is not due to neuron transmission delay.  Something has to make sense of the nerve impulses.  In our case it is our spinal column that says "hey these signals mean the hand is touching something hot!".  The spinal column is "smart" enought to know this is dangerous and says "let go".  The nerve impulses still are travelling to the brain.  The brain does a lot more analysis of the signals, and by this time, it's figured out location, distance, which fingers, how long, how hot etc etc etc, the hand has already jerked away.  And just now you are feeling how hot, it is.
416276
In theory, yes.  Because the light particles that were traveling slower than you would have been slower.  Very good question.  However, speeding past the speed of light would mean the fundamentals of E = Mc^2, would cease to make sense.