• Technus@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        (MC^2 + C√P)^2 wouldn’t give you that result though, because you have to FOIL.

        Instead you’d get M^(2) C^4 + 2MC^(3)√P + PC^2

        And that’s not even the correct formula. It’s

        E^2 = (mc(2))2 + (pc)^2

        You can’t just naively apply a square root unless one of the terms is vanishing (momentum for a stationary mass, giving E = mc^2, or rest mass for a massless particle, giving E = pc = hf).

        The way to remember this is that it’s equivalent to the Pythagorean theorem, A^2 + B^2 = C^(2).

        So it in fact only makes sense if AI = 0.

        • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          In my experience, when E=mc² is written, physicists generally mean relativistic mass, making the formula extract, whereas m_0 is used for rest mass, as seen in the expansion E = m_0c² + m_0v²/2 + O(v⁴)

          • Technus@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Where does that expansion come from? As far as I can tell, m0v^(2)/2 only gives you the kinetic energy of the object where v << c, in which case the difference between relativistic mass and rest mass is negligible?

            And where does the O(v^4) term come from?