E=m×c^2?
Bedeutet E=m×c^2 nicht eigentlich auch, dass Energie die sich mit weniger als Lichtgeschwindigkeit bewegt zwangsläufig mehr Masse als “Licht” hat?
(2 votes)
Loading...
(2 votes)Loading...
(2 votes)Loading...Similar Posts
Unterschied zwischen Plus-/Minuspol und Nord-/Südpol?
ByMayuMori
Haben heute in Physik mit dem großen Thema Elektromagnetismus begonnen :,) Und unsere Lehrerin hat irgendwie gemeint, dass man den Plus-/Minuspol nicht mit dem Nord-/Südpol verwechseln soll und hat den Unterschied erklärt… Aber ich habe leider nichts verstanden… Wär cool, wenn ihr mir eine verständliche für schwer-verstehende-Leute Antwort gebt :,) Oder evtl eine Website bei…
Was wäre, wenn ein Komet auf die Erde trifft?
Was wäre, wenn ein Komet/Asteroid auf die Erde trifft? Könnte man das irgendwie aufhalten?
Physik Beschleunigung berechnen Hilfe?
ByL4mmx
kann jemand mir bitte helfen ? Aufgabe 1: Ein Pkw beschleunigt gleichmäßig aus dem Stand in 8,4 Sekunden auf 90km-h^-1 Wie lang ist die Beschleunigungsstrecke? Wie groß ist die Beschleunigung? Aufgabe 2: Ein Zug der Berliner U-Bahn beschleunigt während 10 Sekunden mit a=1,85m-s2. Die dabei erreichte Geschwindigkeit wird 38s konstant beibehalten. Danach verzögert der Zug…
Kraft berechnen um reibung zu überwinden?
Aufbau: 30kg sind auf einer antirutschmatte. Jetzt möchte man die antirutschmatte samt des Gewichts wegziehen. Welche Kraft bzw. Gegengewicht muss man aufbringen, damit man die antirutschmatte wegziehen kann. Der bodenbelag ist fliesen. Also schon eher rutschig
Übertragungsfunktion aufstellen Elektrotechnik?
Hi kann mir jemand bitte diese Aufgabe am 1. Beispiel erklären ich habe wirklich keine Ahnung.
No. The equation does not mean more – but also no less – than the equivalence of mass and (rough)energy.
(Masse is an invariant size and does not change, even if spoken frequently by “rough mass” and “relativistic mass” and this distinction is still found in all kinds of books).
Interesting. Thank you.
For your comment on a request:
This view has also been overtaken for a long time. Photons have no mass, even if they have energy.
Thus, no orders of magnitude can be added to the formula simply.
That’s good to know.
Okay, now I understand the problem.
Thank you.
No – this is very correct. It is very often misunderstood if one cannot recognize that the formula is valid only for resting masses and resting energies and it is otherwise necessary to expect the relativistic energy which, in addition to the resting energy, also contains a pulse term. In this pulse term, the energy of the restless photons is also present: or different: photons have no rest mass, which is why they move with c, but a pulse in which the energy is present.
So the formula is wrong?
It mainly means that mass and energy are two phenomena of the same phenomenon.
Unfortunately, this does not answer the question.
Well, the user over me says something very similar. But that something necessarily has to be bigger than something else, would actually require a disparity and no equation.
this is just the equation for the rest mass. There’s no talk of movement. In the case of relativeistic kinetic energy
The answer to the question has already been given by evtldocha.
This is not true because, for example, photons themselves do not necessarily always move at the speed of light. This applies only in vacuo, but can be slowed down by media, such as water. However, photons do not receive a mass.
“Light speed” is unfortunately one of the unhappy and misleading terms.
Okay, I meant that with the second part. It is wrong to call it “light” I could have named it differently, but that was not the actual mistake. It is true that the formula applies only to resting masses and resting energies.
I don’t think it’s the problem. I just have the impression that you’ve just confused two terms here and that’s why you’ve come to an incorrect conclusion.
I’m not sure what you mean. Do you really mean photons or their speed? I don’t suppose the latter, because speed can’t have a mass.
However, I would generally advise you to consider a lecture on the subject, but, depending on the state of knowledge, this could also require further basic knowledge to be acquired before there are too many questions of confusing answers.
Actually, it should only be clear that very small masses can generate very (very) large energies.
“Producing” doesn’t work anyway.
What do you mean?
This is an interpretation of the formula. So is it not correct but only limited to a specific purpose useful? To show what you say?
And what are you doing?
Einstein has simply shown with this formula that even in atoms there is an enormous energy. The formula itself was already known before.