2 ms·
If anyone else is looking for E = mc² as I did the first time I read this, well it's not there. It's in a followup paper he wrote the same year, and though the
by cantrevealname 10y ago
If anyone else is looking for E = mc² as I did the first time I read this, well it's not there. It's in a followup paper he wrote the same year, and though the idea is there, he never literally wrote E = mc² even there. That's a modern formulation.
- IIAOPSW 10y agoYou probably know this but in case anyone doesn't, the correct formulation is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 When p=0 (no momentum (at rest)) E = mc^2 is recovered.
- cygx 10y agoOr m = γ·m_0. Sure, we've mostly stopped using the concept of relativistic mass (after all, its basically the same thing as energy, so why keep two names around), but historically, E = mc² could mean that as well...
- sohkamyung 10y agoThat follow-up paper is linked at the bottom [1], I believe, as "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content?" - "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content?" [ https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/ ]