Energy

Maybe yes and maybe no. Betting against Einstein hasn't worked out too well so far though.

A researcher I saw on TV last night is involved with this and he was very careful to put the disclaimer out that it means nothing until papers are written, they are peer reviewed and someone else can replicate the whole thing.

A really good idea to rebuke Einstein's equation is if someone could prove that there exist still a lighter particles than photons.

I agree; those are the two choices....

(In another context, E = IR.)

With the new >c neutrinos, maybe E = mc^2.003; that'll be just ugly.

d(mv)/dt = (vdm+mdv)/dt

F=d(mv)/dt = vdm/dt+mdv/dt; mdv/dt=ma-->Mechanical

E= F*ds = F*v dt; v= ds/dt

or E = (vdm+mdv)/dt * vdt= v²dm+ mvdv where mvdv-->mechanical(Newtonian Mechanics)

v²dm-->relativistic or should i say in the area of quantum or nuclear physics

say per Einstein v = c then E= c² dm; say from m=0 to m=m then E=mc²

but E= mc²+ mvdv---> it completes the missing term. This equation is subjective to condition.

For newtonian mechanics we neglect the "mc²" term.

E= mc² implicates that when all the mass are to be converted to the lightest particles(photons) this is the equivalent energy.

Two type of matter in the universe, one that losses its nuclear mass(unstable-radioactive material) and one that does not (stable nuclei-elements)

Above is the equation describing both type of material.

It all just started with simple m-mass & v-velocity.. there is no secret, newton has it before Einstein. Only that, he never realized the importance of the derived equation.(derivative)

It really all started with Arthidipides though he gets no credit at all.

I'll say yes:

_{(Public domain photo.)}

XKCD said it best...

http://xkcd.com/955/

I before E, except after C.

The height and weight of that statement is astonishing...