A Correction to Einsteins Derivation of E = mc2

J.S.
(Dated: January 18, 2016)

E = mc2 is one of the most famous physics equations

whose exact deduction is not popular. While there have
been alternative derivations of the equation, the original derivation by Einstein is worth studying as the equation is credited to him. Some explorations posit that
Einsteins derivation is defective but their objections are
defective. Some present completely different derivations
that range from unacceptable to ok. In this paper I explore Einsteins original derivation and modify an approximation he uses to an exact calculation. In 1905,
Einstein published a paper Does the Inertia of a Body
Depend Upon its Energy Content that concluded from
his special relativity paper On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies through a special radiation process and
energy conservation that E = mc2 . Lets unpack Einsteins deduction.
Let there be a stationary body in the system of coordinates (x, y, z) referred to as S and let its total energy
be E0 in the system. Let the energy of the body be H0
relative to a system (, , ) referred to as S 0 and always
be moving with velocity v in the x-direction relative to
S. Any potential energies of the body are measured from
the same zero reference in both systems so that H0 - E0
is precisely the kinetic energy of the body K0 with respect to S 0 . Suppose the body sends out a photon of
light in a direction making an angle with the x-axis of
S and the photons energy is 12 L in S. Simultaneously
in S the body sends out a photon of light with equal energy in the opposite direction. As the body was initially
at rest with respect to S, by conservation of momentum
it will remain at rest with respect to S after radiating
the two photons of equal energy in opposite directions.
Call the energy of the body after the emission of photons
E1 and H1 respectively, measured from S and S 0 respectively. Similarly H1 - E1 is precisely the kinetic energy
of the body K1 with respect to S 0 after emission of the
two photons. By energy conservation in S,
1
1
E0 = E1 + L + L
2
2

(1)

In S 0 the body moves at v. Since the energy of a photon

is ~f , the relativistic doppler effect discussed in [1] and
energy conservation give,
1 1 v cos
1 1 + v cos
H0 = H1 + L p c
+ Lp c
2
2
1 v 2 /c2
1 v 2 /c2

H0 = H1 + p

L
1 v 2 /c2

(2)

(3)

Subtracting (1) from (3),

H0 E0 (H1 E1 ) = L

p
1
1 v 2 /c2

(4)

But,
H0 E0 = K0
H1 E1 = K1
Hence,

K0 K1 = L

1
p

1 v 2 /c2

!
1

(5)

S 0 always moves at velocity v with respect to S and the

body is always at rest with respect to S so the body
always moves at velocity v with respect to S 0 . Thus we
have that the two kinetic energies K0 and K1 measured
in S 0 have the same velocity v. A loss of mass is what
makes them differ as seen from (5). The approximation
made by Einstein in arriving at E = mc2 to be addressed
is the following from (5):
Neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher orders we
may place

K0 K1 =

1L 2
v
2 c2

(6)

And following the binomial expansion of the radical term

in (5),
1
1
1L 2
m0 v 2 m1 v 2 =
v
2
2
2 c2

(7)

L = (m0 m1 )c2

(8)

As L is the energy radiated by the body, it intrinsically

comes from the energy content of the body. L is defined
as the rest energy of the body, Erest . And m0 - m1 is the
lost mass of the body, call it m
then,
Erest = mc2

(9)

2
To make Einsteins deduction exact instead of an approximation from (5) to (6), we note that the kinetic energies
used in (7) are themselves low velocity approximations to
the relativistically correct expression of kinetic energy derived without assuming what is being proved in [4] which
is,

K = mc

1 v 2 /c2

L = (m0 m1 )c2

(11)

!
1

And without use of approximation,

With this expression of kinetic energy equation (5) becomes,

1

p
1 (m0 m1 )c = L
1 v 2 /c2

1 v 2 /c2

Erest = mc2

(12)

1
(10)

[1] On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Albert Einstein 1905.

[2] Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its EnergyContent?, Albert Einstein 1905.

[3] Modern Physics, Randy Harris July 2007, page 17, page
29.
[4] Modern Physics, Paul A. Tipler 2012, page 71.