The Most Famous Equation of All Time is Flawed (E=MC^2)

“The Greatest Equation of All Time”

Take a quick google for the most popular equation ever created. It will surely be Einstein’s E=MC^2.

This formula has a fatal flaw, but first let’s simplify this formula, which is the foundation of spacetime and is based off the speed of light, or the speed of a photon.

Energy = Mass * Speed of a Photon^2

Now, this formula is able to calculate the energy of literally every particle in the known Universe. All you have to do is plug in the mass of the particle or object. But do you know the one particle in the Universe this formula produces incorrect results for? A photon. If you plug in the mass of a photon to this equation (zero), then the formula will tell you that a photon has zero energy, which is not true. One photon of visible light contains about 10-19 Joules (not much, but it still has energy).

Current day physicists claim that there is an extra formula you must use to get the equation to work with photons but let me explain something people. If the most famous formula of all time can calculate the energy of every particle in the known universe EXCEPT photons, and the formula is based off the properties of photons, then something is terribly wrong with the formula, and it should not be dubbed the greatest of all time. It’s as simple as that.

a reply to: wiredcerebellum
Ah please educate yourself a bit about physics before you make more of these threads.

E=mc² is only valid for NON moving objects. Photons move and they do have momentum. The correct formula for you to use in this case involves momentum p.

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

Please educate yourself a bit about physics and math before you make more of these threads. It isn't that hard to understand.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: wiredcerebellum
Ah please educate yourself a bit about physics before you make more of these threads.

E=mc² is only valid for NON moving objects. Photons move and they do have momentum. The correct formula for you to use in this case involves momentum p.

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

Please educate yourself a bit about physics and math before you make more of these threads. It isn't that hard to understand.

I said what I said.

a reply to: wiredcerebellum

Current day physicists claim that there is an extra formula you must use to get the equation to work with photons

See that one word I bolded ?
Photons , theoretically, can act as a particle or a wave and thus have no mass.
Thus the "special" formula for photons.

Einstein's E=MC^2 still holds.
Mission accomplished.
Ignorance denied.

Yea but if you think about it logically, it just doesnt make sense that the equation produces accurate results for every particle in the known universe EXCEPT for photons, when it is literally based off of the speed of photons. Makes no sense. a reply to: Gothmog

a reply to: wiredcerebellum

Yeah, your voiced your opinion. Your wrong opinion.

I would say before you further start challenging decades of science with the hubris you show, maybe you bring something substantial to the table and not these 1st class advanced math rebel challenges that can be refuted.

Because that's what it is. You remind me about someone else not too distant in the past doing exactly this. I see it as advanced form of trolling people

You're forgetting Lorentz forces for objects not at rest, and the resulting relativistic explanations for a great deal of electromagnetic and quantum mechanics. I'm sure things will make more sense once you drill into that.

The equation you need is E=γmc2.

Im not insulting your god “Einstein,” I’m just saying the formula isn’t that perfect. It speaks for itself. a reply to: TDDAgain

a reply to: wiredcerebellum

Im not insulting your god “Einstein,”

And that's checkmate.

Sorry I can't add well played.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: wiredcerebellum

Im not insulting your god “Einstein,”

And that's checkmate.

Sorry I can't add well played.

I genuinely don’t understand what you are trying to imply or get across. You seriously can’t entertain that it’s a little strange that the only particle in existence that the equation produces inaccurate results for is a photon?

a reply to: TDDAgain

It's great a lay-person is at least trying to understand advanced science.
Ask me how I know!


Flubbing it up by not knowing the minimum amount of Humans needed in a medical study to even be considered minimally credible.Struggling with language in any scientific modality, cause those words have a VERY different meaning in every field.There's just tons of examples. ATS has always been about denying ignorance but there should be a more to it like teaching folks how to deny ignorance.

Do you have any idea how many people still don't know they have to "train" their browser?
Altho I've toyed with the idea that since google is spying on me, I should instead of spending time researching just keep talking about a topic an see if google miraculously pops up 100 items automatically doing the work for me.
Heheheheh

a reply to: wiredcerebellum

Yeah and you packaged it very badly. The formula is famous for several reason, one being that it is easy to remember while still being highly relevant and relative (a pun on your costs) easy to explain. Yes it may be the most quoted formula, yet it does not make it necessary that it is possible to use in all cases.

You simply expressed your opinion and I support that, because there will be people like me -always- that will correct you and save others that do not have such deep interest in math and physics from getting a false picture about reality.

Einstein isn't my "god". It's just that you are cocky about the topic and full of hubris, so it will invoke equally cocky answers.

Deal with it.

All equations are Flawed and Incomplete.

Time Never stops , The Universe is Ever Expanding or Contracting there for ever changing there for all equations are incomplete.

a reply to: Caver78

I am by far not very educated in advanced physics. I just could easy memorize the formula and remembered the physics teacher explain that photons are different and a bunch of other variations of above famous formula.

It's no shame to be wrong, but being cocky and making the 2nd thread about how everyone else is wrong but the OP is right, kind of makes my eye twitch and makes me want to put a stop to it.

Because again, this joke and similar were brought up in 12 class gymnasium advanced math by the physics and math teacher. There are more examples and at least one of those surfaced here on ATS a while ago.

The result was the same, me going into the thread and calling it out.


It is similar to mechanics class that I teach my apprentice and ask them if a 1" rod fits into a 1" hole. Much more basic but it is the same trick question to fool them. This (freshman's) year not one of them got it correct. Answer= it does not fit.

originally posted by: wiredcerebellum
Yea but if you think about it logically, it just doesnt make sense that the equation produces accurate results for every particle in the known universe EXCEPT for photons, when it is literally based off of the speed of photons. Makes no sense. a reply to: Gothmog

The equation is based on mass.Photons are massless.
And the C^2 is the theoretical speed of light squared , not exactly the speed of a photon.

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: TDDAgain

It's great a lay-person is at least trying to understand advanced science.
Ask me how I know!

Flubbing it up by not knowing the minimum amount of Humans needed in a medical study to even be considered minimally credible.Struggling with language in any scientific modality, cause those words have a VERY different meaning in every field.There's just tons of examples. ATS has always been about denying ignorance but there should be a more to it like teaching folks how to deny ignorance.

Do you have any idea how many people still don't know they have to "train" their browser?
Altho I've toyed with the idea that since google is spying on me, I should instead of spending time researching just keep talking about a topic an see if google miraculously pops up 100 items automatically doing the work for me.
Heheheheh

Thank you for at least understanding I’m just out here searching in science and enjoying life. Isn’t questioning science supposed to be the foundation of scientific integrity?

a reply to: wiredcerebellum

Thank you for at least understanding I’m just out here searching in science and enjoying life. Isn’t questioning science supposed to be the foundation of scientific integrity?

It is! For the rest see Gothmog's post, he took the time twice now to try explain to you with less words and English is his native language.

originally posted by: wiredcerebellum
Im not insulting your god “Einstein,” I’m just saying the formula isn’t that perfect. It speaks for itself. a reply to: TDDAgain

They near precisely calculated the energy released by the first atomic bombs with Einstein's theory.

a reply to: wiredcerebellum

With all the scientific posts you have made lately I'm surprised you have not been nominated for a Nobel Prize. It seems a waste to post such brilliance on ATS, where it will sink into obscurity without so much as a blip on the radar screen. Why not write this up for "Nature" or a similar journal? After all, Einstein worked as a nobody clerk for the patent office when he submitted his very short paper on relativity. It was even submitted without benefit of a single advanced mathematical formula, but was recognized as genius by every learned person who read it. Your erudite posts are wasted here where no one understands them. Good luck!

a reply to: wiredcerebellum

I genuinely don’t understand what you are trying to imply or get across.

Then how can you begin to understand physics?