# Could we include Frequency on E = mc²?

+ 0 like - 1 dislike
146 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
recategorized Dec 3, 2018

not graduate+ level. Users with 500+ reputation may vote here to close.

questions in other online platforms that value such questions.

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 ?

If this is true, we can afirm that frequency is linked to energy.

There could be huge implications in my point of view..

First of all implications: The 2 formulas of energy (considering mass, and considering wave), are now a single formula[ E = (m.d²/t) . f ], and E=mc² is a special case, where time and  frequency are synced.

h=d².m/t, (constant of Planck) is already considered as the energy of a foton in rest(not vibrating), and by that logic, any material, would have its own constant, meaning that this equation could be applied in any case: from quarks to galons of water..

I know it must be wrong, but i  when thought about it and the "math matched",... I needed someone else to take a look into it.

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.