Print

Print


Christophe Grandsire writes:
 > En réponse à Lars Henrik Mathiesen <[log in to unmask]>:
 >
 > >
 > > That is indeed so in most modern formulations of the Special Theory of
 > > Relativity. But I'm pretty sure that back when the expression first
 > > got popularized, m was used for the 'relativistic mass', i.e.
 > >
 > >                         m = \gamma m_0
 > >
 > > where m_0 is the rest mass. With that definition, E = m c^2 is exactly
 > > correct.
 > >
 >
 > Except that it's misleading, because most people don't know about the
 > difference between rest and relativistic mass and everyone who quotes this
 > takes the mass to be the rest mass. So it stays a misquote, even if in the
 > mouth of some people it may not be. I may be anal about all this, but to me a
 > good scientific quote must be unambiguous and unmisleading.
 >

No equation can be unambiguous without stating the meaning of the
variables and constants, though, can it?