Is the Einstein equation E=Mc^2 correct?

In summary: The bomb's designers were using a simplified form of Einstein's equation that does not take account of the speed of light travelling in a vacuum. As a result, the bomb's actual yield was much higher than expected.
  • #1
michaelser
3
0
I wonder if Einstein equation E=mc^2 was used when the A bombes were designed and tested.
How was the output estimated? Was all the matter thransformed into energy, as the equation indicates?
Were there any restrictions to how this equation ( or nny other) was used?
Thanks,
Michael
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
from the wiki on mass energy equivalence:

"the "Gadget"-style bomb used in the Trinity test and the bombing of Nagasaki had an explosive yield equivalent to 21 kt of TNT. About 1 kg of the approximately 6.15 kg of plutonium in each of these bombs fissioned into lighter elements totaling almost exactly one gram less, after cooling. The electromagnetic radiation and kinetic energy (thermal and blast energy) released in this explosion carried the missing one gram of mass.[31]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence
 
  • #3
I believe so, but that only applies when stationary. When the mass is not stationary I believe I'm right in saying E2=(mc2)2 + (pc)2. So yes theoretically all the mass would have turned to energy.
 
  • #4
CallumC said:
... all the mass would have turned to energy.

What makes you think so? IF all the mass turned into energy, then the formula would apply to all the mass. Do you really think all the mass turned into energy? Had it done so, I think it likely that instead of incinerating a large part of one city, it would have incinerated Japan.
 
  • #5
phinds said:
What makes you think so? IF all the mass turned into energy, then the formula would apply to all the mass. Do you really think all the mass turned into energy? Had it done so, I think it likely that instead of incinerating a large part of one city, it would have incinerated Japan.

I worked out it should produce about 4.68x1018 J. That's obviously a theoretical value but how much it really produced I don't know. Anyone know what that kind of energy would do?
 
  • #6
Tony Campillo said:
from the wiki on mass energy equivalence:

"the "Gadget"-style bomb used in the Trinity test and the bombing of Nagasaki had an explosive yield equivalent to 21 kt of TNT. About 1 kg of the approximately 6.15 kg of plutonium in each of these bombs fissioned into lighter elements totaling almost exactly one gram less, after cooling. The electromagnetic radiation and kinetic energy (thermal and blast energy) released in this explosion carried the missing one gram of mass.[31]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence


Thanks for answering so fast.
I don't know much about Gadget style A bombs, but my problem is this: the BRAVO bomb (March 1954) was calculated an yield of 6 Mt(between 4 to 8 Mt). The actual yield was 15 Mt an error/deviation from the original of +150%. How come?
 
  • #7
CallumC said:
I believe so, but that only applies when stationary. When the mass is not stationary I believe I'm right in saying E2=(mc2)2 + (pc)2. So yes theoretically all the mass would have turned to energy.



Thanks for the reply.
I have a question related to your term of the eqn: (pc)^2. What is the meaning of p.
I assume c is speed of light in "vacuum"
Now some bombs were delivered by airplane. The speed of an airplane is negligible when compared with c.
Therefore the second term is almost zero.
But my real problem is that the BRAVO bomb (March 1954) was calculated an yield of 6 Mt(between 4 to 8 Mt). The actual yield was 15 Mt an error/deviation from the original of +150%. How is this possible?

Thank you much.
 
  • #8
michaelser said:
Thanks for the reply.
I have a question related to your term of the eqn: (pc)^2. What is the meaning of p.
I assume c is speed of light in "vacuum"
here p is the momentum, which is of course zero for a mass that is at rest.

But my real problem is that the BRAVO bomb (March 1954) was calculated an yield of 6 Mt(between 4 to 8 Mt). The actual yield was 15 Mt an error/deviation from the original of +150%. How is this possible?

There's a pretty decent explanation in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#Cause_of_high_yield
 

FAQ: Is the Einstein equation E=Mc^2 correct?

1. Is the Einstein equation E=Mc^2 the same as the equation for energy, E=mc^2?

Yes, they are the same equation. The only difference is the capitalization of the variables.

2. How was the Einstein equation E=Mc^2 derived?

The equation was derived by Albert Einstein in his theory of special relativity. It is a consequence of the equivalence of mass and energy.

3. Can the Einstein equation E=Mc^2 be applied to all objects?

Yes, the equation is applicable to all objects, regardless of their size or mass. However, it is most relevant for objects with high speeds or high energy levels.

4. Is the Einstein equation E=Mc^2 still considered to be accurate?

Yes, the equation is still considered to be accurate and has been extensively tested and verified through experiments and observations.

5. What are the implications of the Einstein equation E=Mc^2?

The equation has many implications, including the understanding of the relationship between mass and energy, the concept of mass-energy equivalence, and the possibility of nuclear energy and weapons.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
9K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
6K
Replies
28
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top