Dear Jamil Kooli .

No. The so-called "rest energy" mc² is nothing more than a fiction or mathematical expression necessary to allow the particle's velocity to asymptotically approach the speed of light c, but not reach it. So that the equations of motion of the particle, like Maxwell's electromagnetic equations, remain invariant under Lorentz transformations. Physically, as I think, the expression mc² is a necessary price for the fact that particle with mass m, in its motion, curves the surrounding space in the form of gravity. While photons do not curve it, but are themselves excited states of elements of space. Where the speed of light c is only the (maximum) speed of this excitation.

Sincerely yours, Dulin Mikhail.

The MCC is an energy of the same family as the kinetic one. Note that they add as vectors (Pythagoras way) E^2 = (mC^2) ^2 + (pC)^2. Energy from different "families" is added in a scalar way. The answer can be read in this paper DOI: 10.21275/SR24212193340. It tells that mC^2 is the kinetics at the 4th dimension and pC is the kinetic from the observable 3D. Both are kinetic energy. From this approach, the spin is understood as the angular momentum of this fluctuation between 3D and the 4th dimension (Spin also is added in a vectorial form with 3D angular momentum J = L + S). I hope it will inspire you, regards

(1): Re your question. The equation “E = m times c-squared” is NOT a special case of some other phenomenon, but something that naturally (and relatively simply) happens to fall out of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (now called the “Special” Theory of Relativity, as opposed to his later “General” Theory of Relativity). What it means is that if you could somehow convert a massive object into pure energy, you would get the amount of energy given by the equation from a given mass “m”. The reverse is also true; if you could somehow combine two or more “pieces” of energy into a massive object, the mass it would have should be E divided by c-squared. Because c-squared is an enormous number, even a tiny amount of mass converted into energy would produce a LOT of energy, and it takes a HUGE amount of energy to create even very small massive objects.

The consequence of the last sentence in the preceding paragraph is that with contemporary technology only atomic and subatomic particles can be created by combining large amounts of energy, and even the decay or destruction of a very small amount of mass produces a very large amount of energy (usually in the form of extremely high-energy gamma rays). One example of converting mass into energy is using a “nuclear” (so-called because they throw atoms or pieces of atoms, such as atomic nuclei and electrons at each other) accelerator to create large numbers of positrons. When one of these meets a normal electron, they annihilate each other, because they are mirror images, an electron being a negatively charged piece of matter with the properties of an electron, and a positron being a positively charged particle (whence its name) piece of ANTI-matter, with as noted above, exactly the same properties as an electron, but the opposite charge. Combining such a pair eliminates the charge (the positive and negative charges exactly canceling each other) and produces one or more “photons” of “light” with an energy equal to the mass/energy value in Einstein’s equation, plus the energy of motion related to their velocity relative to each other prior to their collision and annihilation. The energies of the photons are easy to measure, as they are directly related to their wavelengths, and although the mass of an electron (and the equal mass of a positron) is not known EXACTLY, within the limits of measurement, the result perfectly agrees with Einstein’s equation.

Just as, in the previous paragraph, I describe how we can convert a small mass into a relatively large piece (or pieces) of energy, it is possible to create mass from energy. The most common example of this is “pair production”, in which a photon of light with an energy equal to the mass of two electrons can spontaneously turn into en elctron and a positron. This is harder to do deliberately, but happens all the time in otherwise empty space which has high-energy photons passing through it. (It is also thought to happen near the singularity at the center of a black hole, with particles being created out of the energy associated with the singularity’s mass (per the equation in question), then combining with each other, turning back into energy, and restoring the original energy of the singularity. So at and extremely near the singularity, the “mass” of the black hole is turning mass into energy and vice-versa at an essentially infinite rate.)

Although human conversions of mass to energy can be done at atomic and sub-atomic levels (and is done all the time with high-energy accelerators), because c-squared is such a big number, creating or destroying pieces of matter large enough to see without an electron microscope is not currently possible. And although we can imagine a future in which we have the technology to turn huge amounts of energy into visible amounts of mass, turning visible amounts of mass into energy would produce so much energy that it would vaporize the acclerator and a large part of the surrounding countryside; so whether it will ever be attempted is uncertain, at best.

In other words, although at the atomic and sub-atomic level, there is good evidence that the equation is correct, there is no way to prove that it works all levels, although since it falls out of the Theory of Special Relativity so easily, it is believed to be perfectly accurate at all levels.

As a final note, you are probably aware that there is ongoing study of particles that “decay” so quickly that it is not possible to actually observe them and measure properties such as their mass. But when they decay, they produce photons of high energy whose energy values can be measured, and Einstein’s equation tells us the mass of the otherwise unobservable particles. However, because of the way the mass is determined, it is not stated as so many micrograms or something like that, but as so many giga-electron-volts of energy, since THAT is the value directly obtained, and although the mass can be calculated with Einstein’s equation, it is so small that describing in terms of mass would be an inconceivably small value.

(2): Re the answer by Mr. Dulik that stated that the Equation has something to do with the fact that objects moving at high velocity have a harder and harder time getting close to the speed of light, the closer they get to that speed. That is completely incorrect, as it has absolutely nothing to do with Einstein’s equation for the equivalence of mass and energy. Instead, it has to do with the reason that his theories are referred to as “Relativity”.

In the theory of special relativity, everyone in the Universe sees themselves and objects that are not moving at high speeds relative to them as having certain masses, sizes and passage of time. However, objects moving at high velocity relative to you will appear to have yardsticks shrink in the direction of their movement, the masses of the moving objects steadily increasing, so that it takes more and more energy to make them accelerate, and their clocks moving slower and slower. This is true both for “non-moving” objects, such as “us”, and for the people inside a vehicle moving at a high speed relative to us. They see our yardsticks shrinking, so that objects far apart in our view of things look very close together to people in the moving vehicle. At high enough speeds (close to the speed of light, something like the Andromeda Galaxy, which appears to be about 3 million light-years away from us, is seen by the moving observer as only being about 10 light-years away, and presume we see it as being so much further away because our yardsticks look very small to them, just as their yardsticks appear very small to us. Similarly, just as we their clocks moving very slowly, they see our clocks moving very slowly. So just as our short yardsticks say that the Andromeda Galaxy is 3 million light-years away, our slow-moving clocks say that it takes a vehicle moving at nearly the speed of light 3 million years to get there. But the people in the moving vehicle see the distance between us and the Andromeda Galaxy as only about 10 or 20 light-years, so moving at the speed of light, they can get there in only about 10 or 20 years (10 if they start out at the speed of light, 20 if they start out at zero speed and accelerate, per their measurements, at a constant rate of 1 “g”). None of this discussion has anything to do with the equation E = m times c-squared, but instead, the fact that space-time and the measuring tools used to describe objects look very different to people moving at very different speeds relative to each other.

I apologize for the fact that the “quick and dirty” explanations above may require considerable thought to digest, but as it was, it took me the best part of an hour to put things in the simplest way possible (well, perhaps not THE simplest way, as Einstein said that a correct explanation would make things simple enough that even a child could understand them, and I doubt that what I wrote fits that criterion; but to do an even clearer discussion would take far more time for me to write, and undoubtedly far more time than you would want to spend reading it).

According to the theory, m, in the equation E=mcc, is the "rest" mass of the particle. Now let's assume that, m, is the "holographic" mass of the quantum black hole, so to speak, so this quantum black hole must have a Schwarzschild mass. If we are to extend this Schwarzschild formula to the quantum world, my question is: which comes first? Is it the "holographic" mass, which is supposed to be, m, or the Schwarzschild mass of the black hole which is supposed to be, ms?

Finally, if massive particles arise from nothing, i.e. from something without mass, then could I say that m comes first.

But can mcc testify that the rest mass of a particle arises from only an energy?

Finally, what is the mathematical connection between, mcc, and e(exponent i times Pi) equals negative one?

Mr. Courtney Seligman, who can't write his opponent's name correctly.

You will never turn an atom into energy. You can't do anything even with a single proton or electron, because you need to get a single antiparticle somewhere: an antiproton and/or a positron. And there's nowhere to get them either. You will also never be able to get anything massive from photons. For that, you need a photon to hit an existing particle with mass.

Therefore, you are unnecessarily misleading the author of the question regarding the mc² term. Since this term will never change at any circumstances under the conditions of relativistic particle motion. And where is the equivalence of mass and energy here?!

What you consider an increase in mass for relativistic particle is nothing more than an increase in the particle's momentum. Only momentum and energy matter in Hamiltonian (and quantum) mechanics. The velocity of particle appears only in Newtonian mechanics, when there can be no talk of any relativism. See, for example, Preprint Classical Mechanics from Energy Conservation or: Why not Momentum?