#e=mc2

[scipunk]

Hackers (1995)

[tha-wrecka-stow]

Visit Original Link

You Can Find The Original Version -> Here

[augmentedchordsofficial]

E=mc^2 is crazy tbh because what do you mean it’s THE most well-known equation and literally nobody knows what it means

[lucienballard]

E=MC2 by the British band Big Audio Dynamite ... a truly GREAT track!

The song was inspired by the films of Nicolas Roeg, notably Performance (1970; written and co-directed by Donald Cammell), Walkabout (1971), Don't Look Now (1973), The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976), Eureka (1983), and Insignificance (1985). Its lyrics refer directly to many of them. For example:

The last four lines of the first verse "Man dies first reel / People ask what's the deal? / This ain't how it's supposed to be / Don't like no Aborigine" are a reference to the adventure survival film Walkabout (1971), which begins with an adult character committing suicide, which then leaves two children to survive a trek across the Australian outback, aided by a young Aboriginal male.

The second verse (from "Took a trip to Powis Square" to "Insanity Bohemian style") refers to the two main characters in Performance (1970): a retired rock star (played by Mick Jagger) and a gangster on the run (played by James Fox)

The third verse (from "Met a dwarf who was no good" to "Gets to take the funeral ride") describes Don't Look Now (1973), starring Donald Sutherland.

"Space guy fell from the sky" – refers to The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976), starring David Bowie

"Scientist eats bubble gum" – refers to Albert Einstein, a lead character in Insignificance (1985)

"Hall of fame baseball" – refers to Joe DiMaggio, a lead character in Insignificance (1985)

"Senator's a hoodlum" – refers to Joseph McCarthy, a lead character in Insignificance (1985)

"King of brains" – refers to Albert Einstein, a lead character in Insignificance (1985)

"Queen of the sack" – refers to Marilyn Monroe, a lead character Insignificance (1985)

Included throughout the song are dialogue samples from Performance (1970).

[stone-cold-groove]

Proof.

[eightiesfan]

[dropsdeconteudo]

Albert Einstein, o gênio da relatividade, era muito mais do que apenas um cientista! 🧠⚡ Sabia que ele demorou para falar quando criança e que alguns professores achavam que ele nunca teria sucesso? Pois é! Mas ele provou o contrário com a famosa equação E=mc²! Além disso, Einstein era contra a guerra, odiava usar meias e até recebeu um convite para ser presidente de Israel – mas recusou! Seu legado transformou a ciência para sempre. Curtiu essas curiosidades? Deixe um like e siga para mais!

[oliviabutsmart]

Physics Friday #8: E = mc^2; the most famous equation in history

Well I didn't really have anything else that I could write up in an hour, so I might as well use the topic idea I had already announced as a proper idea.

Preamble: The Equation Itself

Education level: High School (Y9/10)

Topic: Relativity, Particle Physics (Physics)

E = mc² - what does it mean? Well of course you may have heard the phrase "Energy is equivalent or can be converted into mass" but like ... how exactly?

People who've done a bit of reading into this know that this equation also isn't the full picture. Because this equation describes only the resting energy of an object i.e. the energy of something that is not moving at all.

This equation actually has the capacity to encapsulate the TOTAL energy of something, not just the "mass energy" of the particle.

We also need to ask what we mean by energy or mass. That's what we'll cover first.

What is Energy?

Energy, just like a lot of things, gets very abstract. Energy is here, energy is there, energy is everywhere!

This vapid and confusing description of energy often gets taken advantage of by those people, y'know the quacks and the sort.

Energy is actually a much more grounded thing that we can understand.

Work - The Electron Gets a Job

Energy is founded in the concept of work. Work comes in many forms, but is usually introduced under the definition of mechanical work:

The capacity to move an object with mass a particular distance; Work = Force × Distance

With this, work is rather simple, it's just about the ability to move heavy objects around.

What we do next is we need a definition of energy. We can almost intrinsically link work to energy using mechanical kinetic energy:

Mechanical kinetic energy is the capacity to do work and is created by an application of work.

This form of energy is intrinsically tied to both work and momentum. It is quite literally circularly related to work itself. Work is the capacity to change an object's kinetic energy.

The difference is that work is an act while kinetic energy is a property. They exist by their very nature.

Now, mechanical kinetic energy isn't the only type of energy. There's thermal energy, potential energy, and non-mechanical kinetic energy. these types are defined as follows:

Energy is the capacity to do work.

This may seem the same as the previous definition, but note that it is different. Not all forms of energy can be directly be the result of work. But instead there consists of a chain of several reactions and actions that eventually leads to the energy we want.

This very core definition of energy is what we say is 'everywhere'. The air itself contains thermal energy. You can pull energy out of the heat of the atmosphere - that's how things like melting or water evaporation works.

Electromagnetic radiation also contains energy, in the sense that light can interact with objects and push them i.e. doing work.

What and Why is Mass?

Mass is a bit different, primarily because we don't actually have a singular definition of mass. It changes based on the fact that it has multiple properties and sources.

Inertial Mass

This type of mass appears to be the most fundamental. It comes from the equation F = ma, or p = mv.

Inertial mass is the capacity to resist changes in momentum.

When you try to apply work to an object's 'inertia', or your momentum, its mass will make it harder to move it. You can see it in the formula. More force is required in order to accelerate an object when more mass is present.

An object with infinite mass is 'unmovable', as an infinite amount of force is always needed.

This form of mass is fundamental as it is affected by all forces.

Gravitational Mass

Gravity is one force of many, which is very strange, as both momentum and gravitational attraction are described by one component.

Gravitational Mass is the capacity to produce a gravitational field.

This type of mass acts like a charge, that causes objects to become attracted to each other.

The Discrepancy

The difficulty in aligning GR with QFT is partly because of the fact that we cannot seperate the universal concept of inertial mass with gravitational mass.

Let's say we have two electrons, and look at the first electron: The electron will be influenced by the other due to electricity:

F ~ q² (q is the charge of the electron) But this electron will also be affected by gravity: F ~ m² (m is the mass of the electron) Now let's find the acceleration of the electron: a ~ m - q²/m Now look at this equation and notice something. The electron is affected by electricity via a ratio between charge and mass, whereas gravity appears as just the mass term alone.

The discrepancy is why is gravity the only force where we can end up 'getting rid' of terms instead of having a messy division? Why is gravitational charge equal to inertial mass?

Relativistic Mass

When developing special relativity, Einstein noticed how he could combine the principles of time dilation and length contraction to prove his famous equation E = mc².

In his proof, he used inertial mass and mechanical kinetic energy to draw the equivalence. However, this picture is incomplete.

The actual equation is this: E = γmc², where γ is the lorentz factor, something intrinsically tied to the object's speed.

This gives us a notion of relativistic inertial mass, mass that both resists changes in motion but

When we end up expanding this, we get:

E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² + (terms that are too small for us to care about)

This gives us the actual energy of the particle, combining the rest mass and the momentum of the particle to get the total energy.

Still, you might not get the equivalence. And really, we have two different ways to explain this equivalence ...

The Higgs Mechanism

Now I'm not crazy enough to explain the Higgs mechanism in this post yet but what I will say is how particles get their mass.

You see, at the quantum level, particles are actually just wave excitations in the field. The notions of where a particle is or not is kind of meaningless.

And whaddya know? Waves are much easier to understand as to why they have energy, the constant movement and flow demonstrates an intrinsic energy.

Certain particle waves end up interacting with what's known as the Higgs field, a consequence of the many symmetries in QFT.

This interaction turns these particles' loose and vapid energy, into something meaningful - a mass that can be used to inertially interact with other particles.

QFT of course cannot account for gravitational mass, as QFT has no way to demonstrate gravity or warped spacetime. General Relativity works much better ... specifically because it is a theory about gravity.

General Relativity

GR, as stated, is a theory about gravity. GR treats inertial and gravitational mass the same without an issue. And in-fact really emphasises the equivalence between energy and mass.

Mass and energy determines the Stress-Energy tensor, which is a tensor focused entirely on the movement and position of energy and matter, which are treated as identical here:

Image credit: Wikipedia

Here, we don't even care what it's made of, just where it's going and how much of it is there. Because all that matters is that it curves spacetime and can be affected by this spacetime.

Conclusion

Well, while this is a short (and rather rushed) post. For some reason I got IP blocked on discord so I gotta solve that issue now. It doesn't help when you have to deal with a late-semester university schedule.

Like said, feedback and follows are welcome. I'll see you later!