Does anybody know the formula for E=mc2?
954813
Yeah, it's E=mc^2 and it relates energy and mass.  E is energy, m is mass, c is the speed of light (celeritas).  The equation could come useful in physics, like atomic physics.\n\nWhat did you wanted to know?
635609
E=MC2 describes the potential energy in all matter. Since C is the speed of light, and C squared is a HUGE number, there is lots of potential energy stored in all matter.\n\nThere isn't really a practical application unless you're building an atom bomb or a time machine.
83538
E=m*c*c is one of the most famous formulae that exist. It is actually not the full formula, which is \n\nE^2= (m^2)( c^4) + (p^2 )(c^2)\n\nbut for an object at rest, momentum p=0, so we get the familiar equation. Here c is the speed of light in a vacuum, which is the speed limit for our universe (nothing can go faster than the speed of light, according to the special theory of relativity). \n\nThe equation E=mc^2 describes the amount of energy that can be released when matter of mass m is converted to energy E, as in a nuclear power plant or nuclear weapon. \n\nIt arrived as a consequence of Einstein (and other physicists at that time) considering what would happen if you moved very fast, close to the speed of light. This lead to the special theory of relativity, which made all kinds of wild predictions:\n\n1. As you go faster, your mass increases\n2. As you go faster, you shrink, front to back\n3. As you go faster, time travels slower. \n\nThe details get pretty complicated, but I have attached a PBS web site where you can listen to some interviews with famous physicists about what they think about E=mc^2.
169241
I would have to say no. E=mc^2 is a version of einstein's relativity theory. It means that Energy is equal to Mass times the speed of light squared, and that there is an equivalence betwen mass and energy ( it means that no object with mass can go faster than the speed of light). But it has nothing to do with everything being made of nothing in my opinion. (see http://www.drphysics.com/syllabus/energy/energy.html)
62455
Einstein's theory: e(energy)=m(mass)c(speed of light) squared so e=mc2
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.
158826
The E=mc^2 equations come from Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. Special Relativity concerns the laws of motion and observed properties when objects are travelling very close to the speed of light.\n\nSpecial relativity starts with two premises: the speed of light is constant for all observers, and the laws of physics are the same for all observers. However, observed properties are not necessarily the same.\n\nSay I flew past the Earth in a space ship travelling 99% the speed of light. To me, the space ship is normal, but the Earth would look squished, rotated, and blue with everyone moving slowly. To you, however, Earth would look normal, but the space ship would be squished, rotated, blue and with everyone moving very slowly. (This gets resolved if the space ship turns around - breaking the symmetry - to come home, and results in the famous Twins "Paradox.")\n\nIn describing the laws of motion in the context of special relativity Einstein derived that E = mc^2 -- in other words that mass has a "rest energy."\n\nIf an electron and an anti-matter electron (known as the positron) bump into each other then their is total energy conversion. The mass of two electrons is converted into energy.\n\nIn a fission or fusion bomb the the atomic process (breaking apart a heavy atom, or fusing some light atoms) results in a  much smaller conversion of mass to energy. But still a lot compared with normal explosives.
401395
Way to go Arbitrage!  Oh to funny guy- yeah we get that E=MC2  IS a formula- but if you really want to "get it" Check out Maxwells equations. It's a great time to be a science nerd with all this info pouring in now! Figure it out & go up one on Albert!
682752
In short, No. E=MC2 is Einsteins formula for explaining the rest energy of a body. Basically how much energy any object contains bundled within its atoms. He created this at the beginning of the 1900's. The first electrical devices were springing up in the 1600's - 1700's.
462280
E = Fd = (2E-9 N) (200E-12 m) = x J\nx J (1 kJ / 1000 J) = xE-3 kJ\n\nI think this is already per mol...
195947
In Einstein's equation E=mc^2, E stands for energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. This theory of relativity helps to explain how we get energy from nuclear reactions, as the mass of atoms and particles themselves are converted into energy.
437730
See http://members.aol.com/logan20/elecspon.html for the equation to use.
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.
872993
E=m c^2\nEnergy=Mass &#92;times (speed of light)^2
809521
E=MC2, so universe = infintie mass, Energy= infinite times. \n\nSpeed of light squared is will power.
618887
By relativity, E = Mc2\n\nIf E = 4 X 10^6 J, then....\n\n4 X 10^6 / c^2 = 4.45 X 10^ -11 kg\n\nWhere C = 299,792,458 m/s
1164142
F=O \n\nbut if E=MC2 then F=ND3\n\nthen F=ND3, \nsince ND is just [(M+1)(C+1)] \nthen \nF=({[(M+1)(C+1)]}3)\n\n\nOr you could say that\nF=E+1