Hi,
First of all.. This question is regarding energy.. E=mc^2.. Why
is it E=mc^2 and not E=mc^3? or E=mc^4? And from this equation,
this shows that the speed of light could be increased. So as most
of us know, light is a particle and a wave. For particle, at
absolute zero, 0F, there is absolutely no movement... So does that
mean light can stop at absolute zero?
This equation does not show anything about the speed of light.
The speed of light is included in the equation here for mass
difference occuring during changes in the mass of the molecules due
to nuclear or chemical or any events that will cause molecules or
atoms to change. Example would be that hydrogen and oxygen, when
the individual atoms join up to form a water molecule, the atomic
mass of the water molecule is less than the sum of the total atomic
masses of 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. This is because of
some bonding energy between the atoms (forgot exact term for it; it
is energy required to break the bonds within the molecule) and this
bonding energy has the value as E=mc^2. Speed of light is always a
constant in vaccum. Also, the equation E=mc^2 also states that c is
the speed of light in vaccum.
This E=mc^2 is a simplification from a more chim energy equation
for relativistic energy, in which the energy of particles moving
near the speed of light are calculated. For all cases much slower,
we can use the simplified E=mc^2
However, I'm not exactly sure how Einstein came about with all
his equations on relativity. This E = mc^2 included.
Next.. there is many definition of energy... Energy gain/ loss
could be 0.5(mass)(velocity)^2..could also be (mass)(gravitational
field strength)(height)...could also be ( Force)(Distance) which is
work done... could also be (Mass)(speed of light)^2... could also
be (Mass)(Gravitational Field Strength)(Distance)... So.. by
equating all of the equations.. we should get 0.5(mass)(velocity)^2
= ( Force)(Distance) OR 0.5(mass)(velocity)^2= (Mass)(speed of
light)^2...And many more defintions of energy...
Yes, but it depends on usage. With this in mind, you can use the
powerful concept of the conservation of energy to solve many
questions purely by equating.
But I have a particular concern over here.. which is,
(Mass)(speed of light)^2=(mass)(gravitational field
strength)(height)...
So by cancelling the constant Mass from both side... we will get
(speed of light)^2=(gravitational field strength)(height).. So how
reliable is this definition of Energy...furthermore we can bring
the g.f.s over to the LHS.. which becomes speed of light ^2 / g.f.s
=height... How reliable is the Einstein Theory?
When we equate energy equations, we usually equate change in energy.
E=mc^2 does not denote any change in energy; it denotes the total
energy (due to mass). Only if there's a change in mass (usually
atomic), then there will be a change in energy.
The mgh that you stated normally has a base point; mgh merely
refers to a change in gravitational potential energy. The change is
manifested in the value of h. Strictly speaking, even for energy =
force * distance, the change in energy is manifested in
distance.
Thus, you cannot equate the two together.