Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Could we include Frequency on E = mc²?

+ 0 like - 1 dislike
1255 views

Do these equations make any sense?

$E = mc²$ 
$E = h.f$ 
$ f = \frac{1}{\Delta t} $

f = Frequency

$$ c² = \frac{d²}{t²} $$

$$ c² = \frac{d²}{t} * \frac{1}{t} $$
if $\Delta t$ is equal to $t$, then we have E=mc², if different, we have $E =m . \frac{d²}{t} . f$

Equaling both Energy Equations:

$$h.f = m.c²$$
$$h.f = m . \frac{d²}{t} . f$$
$$h = m.\frac{d²}{t}$$
$h = d².\frac{m}{t}$ => happens to be the same units of Plancks Constant. 
 $m²\frac{kg}{s}$

Throwing "h" again in the formula of E = h.f:

$$ E = d².\frac{m}{t}.f$$
OR
$$ E = m.\frac{d²}{t} . f$$
That could be also seen as:
$$ E = m. \frac{d²}{t} . \frac{1}{\Delta t} $$
IF, $\Delta t$ is equal to t:
$$E = m.\frac{d²}{t²}$$
and since $v² = \frac{d²}{t²}$ and  $c² = v²$:

$$ E = mc² $$


Is there something wrong with these equations? 

Closed as per community consensus as the post is not graduate-level
asked Nov 27, 2018 in Closed Questions by DANTE [ no revision ]
recategorized Dec 3, 2018 by Dilaton
Most voted comments show all comments

Your assumed equation $E=hf$, due to Planck 1900, already shows that frequency is linked to energy. Its huge implications are already well-known.

Your rewriting of the equations is empty play.

@Arnold, i know that he already showed it, but what im trying to show is that his equations would fit anything, including Einstein's that is a special case of Planck's where time and frequency are synced.

Is right to afirm that? that they are both the same equation?

They are different equation, and to make them look the same you need additional input. 

Arnold, I have prepared a informal paper with the ideas. Do you want to take a look a it?

No, your calculations are empty of meaning.

Most recent comments show all comments

Could please tell me why this is wrong? is the math completely wrong? or you not agree with the conception?

you conclude with one of the hypotheses. By construction, the conclusion is true, even if the details are not checked. However, what it is the interest of this performance ?





user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...