Solving E=mc²

[antimatter]

I'm trying to solve E=mc², I'm not sure if I'm doing it correctly though, so I'll model out what I'm doing.

 

First, the mass of the object 5 kg.

So you plug in the numbers E=(5)(299 792 458 m / s), and then, you just multiply and you get 1,498,962,290 joules, and that's the amount of energy you need to move an object that weighs 5kg (11 lbs) at the speed of light.

 

Is that correct?

 

 

edit: Unfortunatly I forgot to square the speed of light, so the amount of energy from the annihilation of a 5 kg (11 lb) object would be 2.246887947x10¹⁸

[swansont]

No.

 

That's the amount of energy you'd get from this mass, were you to annihilate with an equal amount of antimatter, from which you'd get an additional amount of energy equal to that number.

 

The speed of light is not attainable for an object with mass, even as the energy added approaches infinite value.

[antimatter]

So if that's the energy released from annihilation, what role does the speed of light play in this whole equation?

[NeonBlack]

No, plug in the numbers, 5kg time 299792458 SQUARED, and you will get the amount of energy stored in the mass of 5kg at rest. This energy could be released potentially by something like annihilation of ANTIMATTER.

 

edit: missed 2 posts while typing this time! I need to dig out Mavis Beacon.

 

AM, just think of c squared as a conversion factor between mass and energy, kind of like how boltzmann's constant is a conversion between temperature and energy.

 

If you want to know WHY c squared is the factor, it involves a bit of math(s). I don't know your level of mathematics, but there is a fairly recent thread with a brief derivation that I'll be willing to dig up if you're advanced enough.

[antimatter]

No, plug in the numbers, 5kg time 299792458 SQUARED, and you will get the amount of energy stored in the mass of 5kg at rest. This energy could be released potentially by something like annihilation of ANTIMATTER.

 

Ah I forgot the squared, I knew I was missing something.

 

 

If you want to know WHY c squared is the factor, it involves a bit of math(s). I don't know your level of mathematics, but there is a fairly recent thread with a brief derivation that I'll be willing to dig up if you're advanced enough.

 

My math isn't very advanced...yet...I'm waiting for my math education to catch up with science.

[Riogho]

Pre-Calc FTW

[antimatter]

sure...

[ugoben]

well, i gonno get my really sooner; a new formula derived over here, get hooked ok.

[Klaynos]

urrrr you what?

[antimatter]

well, i gonno get my really sooner; a new formula derived over here, get hooked ok.

 

Eh...

[insane_alien]

i think he means something along the lines of he has developed another formula(possibly related to e-mc^2) or something. need to see it to believe it though.

[antimatter]

Oh okay...