Has E=mc2 been proved practically?

Petrochemicals · « **on:** 04/12/2023 16:51:09 »

Has the mass energy equivalence been proved observationally? E being in joules I believe, has the relationship between mass and energy been measured at a practical level?

Bored chemist · « **Reply #1 on:** 04/12/2023 16:52:12 »

Origin · « **Reply #2 on:** 04/12/2023 17:17:57 »

Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/12/2023 16:52:12

Yes.

I second that.

paul cotter · « **Reply #3 on:** 04/12/2023 17:33:26 »

I believe the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or any power companies that use nuclear could confirm this. 1 amu=~930Mev

Zer0 · « **Reply #4 on:** 04/12/2023 18:53:46 »

@PC

Think of Photons...Massless!

What's 0 x c^2 ?
E = 0 ?

E = mc^2 is perhaps half the Equation, hence half Correct.

ps-m o m e n t u m
: )

paul cotter · « **Reply #5 on:** 04/12/2023 20:10:38 »

Zero, the equation E=MCsq relates mass to energy. For a massless particle like a photon we use E=hF where h is the planck constant and F is the frequency. Theses symbols are not correct and I hope I am being clear, I can only find the reduced planck which is h/2pi.

Petrochemicals · « **Reply #6 on:** 04/12/2023 21:12:27 »

But joules being equal to the mass in kg multiplied by the square of the speed of light in metres covered in a second. Is there any mathematical demonstration that would satisfy a power engineer?

Origin · « **Reply #7 on:** 04/12/2023 22:16:48 »

Quote from: Petrochemicals on 04/12/2023 21:12:27

But joules being equal to the mass in kg multiplied by the square of the speed of light in metres covered in a second. Is there any mathematical demonstration that would satisfy a power engineer?

Yes.
Ya know you google this question and get the answer in hardly any time at all.

Petrochemicals · « **Reply #8 on:** 04/12/2023 22:46:20 »

Quote from: Origin on 04/12/2023 22:16:48

Quote from: Petrochemicals on 04/12/2023 21:12:27
But joules being equal to the mass in kg multiplied by the square of the speed of light in metres covered in a second. Is there any mathematical demonstration that would satisfy a power engineer?
Yes.
Ya know you google this question and get the answer in hardly any time at all.

If you wouldn't mind, the Wikipedia examples are not entirely convincing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mass+energy+equivalence+proof&oq=mass+energy+equivalence+proof&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyCQgAEEUYORiABDIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjINCAQQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAUQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAYQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAcQABiGAxiABBiKBdIBCTE1NjI0ajBqNKgCALACAA&client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

alancalverd · « **Reply #9 on:** 04/12/2023 22:56:07 »

Your google search reveals

Mass-energy equivalence implies that, even though the total mass of a system changes, the total energy and momentum remain constant. Consider the collision of an electron and a proton. It destroys the mass of both particles but generates a large amount of energy in the form of photons.

Which is utter drivel, probably compiled by an AI system.

alancalverd · « **Reply #10 on:** 04/12/2023 22:59:09 »

As for a proof that would satisfy a power engineer, it is in the first lecture of Nuclear Reactors 101. But that was nearly 60 years ago so I won't attempt to recall it now.

Petrochemicals · « **Reply #11 on:** 04/12/2023 23:12:44 »

Quote from: alancalverd on 04/12/2023 22:59:09

As for a proof that would satisfy a power engineer, it is in the first lecture of Nuclear Reactors 101. But that was nearly 60 years ago so I won't attempt to recall it now.

They do the practical in the lecture, how exiting.

Bored chemist · « **Reply #12 on:** 04/12/2023 23:50:45 »

Quote from: Petrochemicals on 04/12/2023 22:46:20

If you wouldn't mind, the Wikipedia examples are not entirely convincing.

Yes they are.
The problem must lie elsewhere.

alancalverd · « **Reply #13 on:** 05/12/2023 10:43:55 »

Quote from: Petrochemicals on 04/12/2023 23:12:44

Quote from: alancalverd on 04/12/2023 22:59:09
As for a proof that would satisfy a power engineer, it is in the first lecture of Nuclear Reactors 101. But that was nearly 60 years ago so I won't attempt to recall it now.
They do the practical in the lecture, how exiting.

I do the practical from time to time when I measure pair production from photon-nucleon interactions or the gamma radiation from a positron source inside a body.

The question was asking for practical proof, and it has been offered from sunshine via Los Alamos and Sizewell to Hammersmith Hospital.

Then you asked for theoretical proof, and I find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence to be an adequate introduction if you don't have time to attend a formal lecture

What more do you want?

vhfpmr · « **Reply #14 on:** 05/12/2023 11:04:11 »

E = 0.5mv^2, 0.5Iω^2, 0.5CV^2, 0.5LI^2, & mC^2.

What happened to the 0.5?

alancalverd · « **Reply #15 on:** 05/12/2023 14:22:45 »

It's the difference between kinetic energy and suchlike, and mass-energy equivalence.

Petrochemicals · « **Reply #16 on:** 05/12/2023 17:35:35 »

Quote from: alancalverd on 05/12/2023 10:43:55

Then you asked for theoretical proof,

No I did. That is from you.

Is there any sort of practical example, I would only think it possible as of late, in a similar fashion to the higgs Boson demonstration having taken years to achieve.

Origin · « **Reply #17 on:** 05/12/2023 19:13:01 »

Quote from: Petrochemicals on 05/12/2023 17:35:35

Is there any sort of practical example

Sure look at uranium 235 fission. The mass of the fission products is less than the mass of the U235 atom.
It sorta surprises me that you think the most famous equation in physics isn't supporting by real world evidence.

acsinuk · « **Reply #18 on:** 05/12/2023 20:16:14 »

The problem is electromagnetic energy is massless and therefore cannot be described in MKS units which relegate it to the secondary derivative ML^2/T. So the formula is incorrect as no Mass equals zero energy thus banning sunshine.

paul cotter · « **Reply #19 on:** 05/12/2023 20:42:49 »

I was wondering where the sun had gone, thinking it was seasonal, but now I know acsinuk proscribed it.

Has E=mc2 been proved practically?

Petrochemicals (OP)

Petrochemicals (OP)

Petrochemicals (OP)

Petrochemicals (OP)

Petrochemicals (OP)