e=mc3?

Forums: Math, Maths, E-mc2, E-mc3
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have a question.
What exactly would happen if you changed e=mc2 to e=mc3?
Just wondering,
plz repli

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 17 • Views: 22,034 • Replies: 40

[+3] - farmerman - 08/03/2009As rosborne said, E=mc^2 is the bitter end of F=Ma, which is actually F=m v^2. So when Einstein thought about it he said "what is the fastest v^2 I can come up with and it was, by limit of the...
[+3] - Brandon9000 - 08/03/2009The equation can never be true, because the units on the right would be killogram meters cubed per seconds cubed, whereas the units on the left would be kilogram meters squared per second squared....

@C99,

C99 wrote:

I have a question.
What exactly would happen if you changed e=mc2 to e=mc3?
Just wondering,
plz repli

The pedantic answer is that you would would wreck the equation.

I think the reason "c" is squared is because the whole equation is related to the equation E=1/2 Mv^2, where the constant "c" (the speed of light) is a special velocity.

More deeply, I think velocity is squared because velocity is a function of distance over time, which are two dimensions and thus represented by squaring (^2).

Perhaps someone more literate in math can explain it better than that.

2 Replies

@C99,

Mathematically, c^2 is just a constant. If you changed it to a bigger constant, then e would still be a linear function of m with a higher slope.

2 Replies

@engineer,

As rosborne said, E=mc^2 is the bitter end of F=Ma, which is actually F=m v^2. So when Einstein thought about it he said "what is the fastest v^2 I can come up with and it was, by limit of the universe thespeed of light, or (c). This was all a mind game with Einstein. It took an atomic pile and a bomb to prove it (sort of) right.

2 Replies

The equation can never be true, because the units on the right would be killogram meters cubed per seconds cubed, whereas the units on the left would be kilogram meters squared per second squared. It's like saying that five seconds equals two meters, it cannot be correct. We call such an equation dimensionally incorrect.

It's an interesting coincidence. I was discussing this subject here earlier today. I see that today is your first day on A2K.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

actually that kindov helped

1 Reply

@C99,

It was a good question. I've wondered the same thing before myself (asked it on Abuzz years ago, and got a similar answer to the one I dug up above).

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

ya same here i was juzt wondering

0 Replies

E=∫p dv)=∫(m_0^c) dv=m_0∙c∫dv=m_0∙c∙(c-0)=m_0∙c^2
from 0 to c. c-speed of the light

1 Reply

@gold einstein,

E=∫p dv=∫m∙v dv)=m_0 ∫(v∙dv)/√(1-v^2/c^2 )=(m_0∙c)/2 ∫ d(c^2-v^2 )/√(c^2-v^2 ))=(m_0∙c)/2 * 2∙√(c^2-v^2 )=m_0∙c∙(c-0)=m_0∙c^2.
from o to c .

0 Replies

energy = the sum product of the photon 'mass per metre cubed' x the mean average of all photons within a mean average sampled cubed metre, x the cosmological total volume constant; which is 1 cubed metre x infinity; the cosmos is a perceived infinity in relation to human consciousness and is an energy exchange medium and is a presented complex photon matrix of excellence given to humans and is sign of total greatness and wondrous glory from ALMIGHTY GOD/ALLAH

1 Reply

@engineer,

Are you saying DIstance and time are the two dimentions represented in E+MC2? I must ask; is not distance something traveled via three dimentions, linear, or not? What if we took this a step further and asked ourselves what would we have if we multiplied mass to the speed of light to the power of 4? Four known dimentions; Up/Down, Left/Right, Back/Fourth, and Time(Space/time?). It takes time for light to travel, but I am given pause to wonder if Spacetime membrane might restrict the speed of light? Any thoughts? Anyone?

1 Reply

Why, The world would be ruled by Cthulu. and eternal damnation and Justin Beiber would torture us... Forever.....

0 Replies

E=mc3 because there are three dimensions;
direction, time and distance - so more energy for these Atom energy plants, time to reduce the price Surprised

)

0 Replies

@C99,

I accidentally derived E=mc^2 organically today.

Reflecting on my derivation, your equation: E=mc^3, is actually a more accurate representation of reality.

However, in order to realize the implications of your equation, the fundamental premises underlying the variables in question must be reconstituted.

0 Replies

@C99,

It would be equally meaningless.

0 Replies

@Xibalba2012,

thats the kind of thinking that leads to these absurd theory's of physics we have today. time is not a dimension. neither is up or down. Time is observed erosion and up and down are relative directions. a dimension is how many lines and points from a center point it takes to describe a physical object. a new word needs to be created for what you call demolitions. We do not live in a world of three dimensions we live in a world. dimensions are nothing more than a way to write with numbers the information it takes to describe a geometric shape.

2 Replies

@C99,

It could be applied to nothing because E=mc2 is the formula foe star energy (energy=mass*speed of light squared so E=mc3 is pointless

0 Replies

@C99,

e, m, and c are predefined units of measure. 'm' refers to mass at rest and 'e' refres to energy of mass at rest. Since e=mc^2, mc^3 can only equal ec, or ec=mc^3. Therefore while it is possble to consider mc^3, you would need to provide for a new notation for the result; i.e. e*c == Energy not at rest.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Theoretical question here. What would happen to the equation if you used different mathematics. Lets say mathematics based on the concept of 2 actually being 3? Basically, all numbers are increased by 1, but the number 1 itself is never used.

1 Reply

e=mc3?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know