Einstein's proof for E=mc^2 in about 4 minutes

Рет қаралды 3,629

Күн бұрын

I think I like this proof the most because it's incredibly simple yet doesn't compromise on elegance. Lemme know what you think in the comments.

Пікірлер: 29

@Isaac-mt9hx 9 ай бұрын

Your physics videos are always welcomed!!

@ishu4535 9 ай бұрын

Amazing video as always.

@anupamamehra6068 9 ай бұрын

do you find these proofs from sources or you come up with them?

@maths_505 9 ай бұрын

This is from Einstein's 2nd paper on relativity

@illumexhisoka6181 9 ай бұрын

I will come back after I have a better handle of physics 😅 But about math I have never seen you make any videos about limits despite the fact they are the core of cacules And I have great suggestion The lim trigamma(x)*x as x->∞ I hope you try it

@marylinebentzinger7378 9 ай бұрын

Please do more physics video, love them! (I love maths videos too don't be mistaken 😉)

@maths_505 9 ай бұрын

Yeah I think I'm done with the mass energy equivalence videos 😂. Onto tensors and 4 vectors now

@kyleyu9935 9 ай бұрын

@@maths_505 yes bro as a physics student i would love to see your take on 4-dimensional formalism for special relativity

@AB-nu5we 9 ай бұрын

Fun.

@zeta75011 9 ай бұрын

GOD ÉQUATION 😊

@markerena2274 9 ай бұрын

Neat proof, but isn't the kinetic energy really equal to gamma*mc^2 - mc^2 ? 1/2*m*v^2 works only for low velocities

@maths_505 9 ай бұрын

Which is why I made sure to use the version of the Doppler effect valid for low velocities.

@daddy_myers 9 ай бұрын

@@maths_505You mentioned explicitly at 1:22 that: "Here, the *relativistic* Doppler Effect applies". Doesn't relativistic imply that the object moves at the speed of light (or atleast comparable to it)?

@maths_505 9 ай бұрын

The Doppler effect is a consequence of relativity itself.....one limiting application doesn't change that.

@markerena2274 9 ай бұрын

@@maths_505 and how do you derive the change in energy formula for the relativistic Doppler effect?

@maths_505 9 ай бұрын

You can find one on Wikipedia

@fmakofmako 9 ай бұрын

I think this is how I learned it, the other two methods you showed were great, but I didn't have a sense of familiarity. Are you planning on showing any other methods of proof? Since you've started doing these I've wanted to review some things in special relativity, but haven't yet.

@maths_505 9 ай бұрын

Nah I'm done with mass energy equivalence proofs. I'd like to try 4 vectors though

@fmakofmako 9 ай бұрын

@maths_505 gotcha, I wasn't sure how many proofs existed. If you did a series on Pythagorean theorem you'd have thousands of options (not saying you should).

@Afripol 9 ай бұрын

It has been argued that Einstein's theory did not assign a definite stress-energy tensor to the gravitational field. Is this plausible?

@anupamamehra6068 9 ай бұрын

a beautiful result : integral from 0 to infinity of (root x times ln(x)) / (1+x^2) dx = (pi)^2 / (2root2). can anyone tell how to prove this?

@maths_505 9 ай бұрын

Differentiate the beta function

@nathansnail 9 ай бұрын

won't the radiation moving away have a higher perceived frequency?

@Ghostwriter_zone 9 ай бұрын

Amazing proof ,quite simple and understandable. I'm sure that Einstein didn't revealed this way😂

@user-sf9qw2eb6c 9 ай бұрын

Why is it 137? Fine structure constant

@Ni999 9 ай бұрын

It's not. The fine structure constant, α, is 0.0072973525693, and its inverse is 1/α = 1/137.035999084, with a relative uncertainty of 1.5×10^(−10). It would be different if Planck's constant, the speed of light, the electric charge constant, the absolute permittivity, or π had different values - but they don't. We don't know why any of those things, including the fine structure constant, have the values that they do from first principles. We probably never will. We measured them, defined them all except for the fundamental charge (we still measure that, and confirm it by measuring the vacuum permeability to verify the fine structure constant, charge and c), and we've moved on. Perhaps some day we'll know more. Unless you're a theoretical physicist it's nothing to lose sleep over. We have much bigger mysteries to deal with and we're nowhere close to knowing that we're actually asking the right questions.

@user-in8zg9dq5z 9 ай бұрын

Bro i saw all mathematics proof of e=mc^2 and Lagrange mechanic and i want coulomb law full mathematics proof

@dzuchun 9 ай бұрын

omg, please stop mashing random equations together and proclaiming you've proven something. of course, rays reaching the rocket on your figure will have less energy, but the ones going away from it will have more energy. Not sure if these would be compensated, so I see no simple way to account for that. also, good job on again using approximate formulae in relativistic proofs, I guess it's fine, physics is all just an approximation anyway :clown_emoji:

@ivystar2823 9 ай бұрын

👹