Changes

Probably the best empirical verification of '''E=mc²''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''Nature''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Simon Rainville, James K. Thompson, et. al ''World Year of Physics: A direct test of E=mc&sup2;''] Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>, as the authors write in their abstract:

Probably the best empirical verification of '''E=mc²''' was done in 2005 by Simon Rainville et al., as published in ''Nature''<ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7071/full/4381096a.html Simon Rainville, James K. Thompson, et. al ''World Year of Physics: A direct test of E=mc&sup2;''] Nature 438, 1096-1097 (22 December 2005)] doi:10.1038/4381096a; Published online 21 December 2005</ref>, as the authors write in their abstract:

{{cquote|Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1-?mc²/E&#061;(-1.4±4.4)×10^-7, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.}}

{{cquote|Einstein's relationship is separately confirmed in two tests, which yield a combined result of 1−Δmc²/E&#061;(−1.4±4.4)×10⁻⁷, indicating that it holds to a level of at least 0.00004%. To our knowledge, this is the most precise direct test of the famous equation yet described.}}

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==

==A Famous Example -- Nuclear Fission of Uranium==