Proton Mass-Energy: E=mc^2 Explained

  • Thread starter Sakha
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proton
In summary, the full equation for total energy is E = \sqrt{\left(\frac{m_o v c}{\sqrt{(1-v^2/c^2)}}\right)^2 + \left(m_0c^2\right)^2}. However, a simplified form for moving particles is E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2, where p is the relativistic momentum. The de Broglie hypothesis suggests that all particles have an intrinsic wavelength and the rest-mass energy of a resting proton is about 938 MeV. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) smashes protons with a relative energy of 7 TeV to generate particles and attempts to detect Higgs
  • #1
Sakha
297
0
After some learning on atomic physics, I came with the following question.
Proton mass is 1.67262158 × 10E-27 kilograms, and its velocity is proportional to its energy. So then, in E=mc^2, you only plug the m, and you will always get the same value. I don't quite understand that a proton approaching to c has about 7 TeV (I got that from an LHC article). So then, according to E=mc^2, a proton (and every other particle) has the same energy independently of its velocity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Sakha said:
After some learning on atomic physics, I came with the following question.
Proton mass is 1.67262158 × 10E-27 kilograms, and its velocity is proportional to its energy. So then, in E=mc^2, you only plug the m, and you will always get the same value. I don't quite understand that a proton approaching to c has about 7 TeV (I got that from an LHC article). So then, according to E=mc^2, a proton (and every other particle) has the same energy independently of its velocity?

E=mc^2 is only half the story. The full equation for total energy is:

[tex]E = \sqrt{\left(\frac{m_o v c}{\sqrt{(1-v^2/c^2)}}\right)^2 + \left(m_0c^2\right)^2}[/tex]

When the particle is at rest and v=0 the equation reduces to the familiar E=mc^2 which is the energy due to the rest mass [itex] (m_o) [/itex] of the particle.

The full equation is difficult to get on a T shirt or incorporate into a catchy tune :tongue:
 
Last edited:
  • #3
An easier-to-remember form of that equation is:

[tex]E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/tex]

...with the understanding that m stands for rest mass and p stands for the relativistic momentum, which is like classical momentum multiplied by gamma (i.e. [tex]p = mv/\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}[/tex])

edit: actually kev made a small error in typing the equation, that 1-v^2/c^2 in the denominator of the parentheses should be in a square root.

edit#2: by the way, another simple form of the equation for the energy of a moving object is [tex]E = \gamma mc^2[/tex], where the gamma factor is given by the usual [tex]\gamma = 1/\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}[/tex]...a little algebraic manipulation will show it's equivalent to the first equation I quoted.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Oh.. I had absolutely no clue about that. It's weird that in most cases they never show the real formula.
 
  • #5
Sakha said:
Oh.. I had absolutely no clue about that. It's weird that in most cases they never show the real formula.
Well, E=mc^2 is the real formula for the energy of a particle at rest (you can see that if the momentum p = 0, then the formula I posted reduces to E = mc^2), it just doesn't give you the additional kinetic energy for a moving particle.
 
  • #6
JesseM said:
edit: actually kev made a small error in typing the equation, that 1-v^2/c^2 in the denominator of the parentheses should be in a square root.

Oops, your right :blushing: I have edited the post to correct the mistake :redface:


P.S. I gave the non simplified equation with v explicitly stated so that Sakha could insert a value for v and check the validity of the equation against the information he has gleaned from the LHC.

P.P.S. I am surprised that there is so little mention of the LHC in this forum or the Cosmology forum considering it was switched on a few days ago after many years in the making and billions of dollars. Is there that much lack of interest or is everyone just patiently waiting for solid results?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Another little question..
I know that c = [tex]\lambda \nu[/tex] for photons, but does v =[tex]\lambda \nu[/tex] for everything?
 
  • #8
Sakha said:
Another little question..
I know that c = [tex]\lambda \nu[/tex] for photons, but does v =[tex]\lambda \nu[/tex] for everything?
Yes, wavelength [tex]\lambda[/tex] is the distance between peaks of the wave, frequency [tex]\nu[/tex] is the rate at which successive peaks are passing a given position (number of peaks per second, say), which is just 1/(time between successive peaks). Naturally, the speed at which the peaks are moving is (distance between peaks)/(time between peaks), so that's wavelength*frequency.
 
  • #9
Sakha said:
Another little question..
I know that c = [tex]\lambda \nu[/tex] for photons, but does v =[tex]\lambda \nu[/tex] for everything?

I asume you know about the de Broglie hypothesis that all particles (not just photons) have an intrinsic wavelength?

"Waves of molecules
Recent experiments even confirm the relations for molecules and even macromolecules, which are normally considered too large to undergo quantum mechanical effects. In 1999, a research team in Vienna demonstrated diffraction for molecules as large as fullerenes[8].

In general, the De Broglie hypothesis is expected to apply to any well isolated object."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_wavelength
 
  • #10
The rest-mass energy of a resting proton is about 938 MeV, from resting Electron 0.511 MeV. If you set them in motion the Kinetic Energy will add into it as JesseM explained.
To compare, the energy of visible light is 2-3 eV.
In LHC (Large Hadron Collider) they smash protons with an relative ENERGY of 7 TeV to generate particles (relative to lab 2 x 3.5 TeV - to make it more efficient by making total momentum 0). "Theoretically" the 7 TeV would be enough to create 7000/0.938 = 7450 protons!
They try to detect Higgs particles with - as theory predicts - a mass energy of 500 GeV.
What they do is, annihilating protons to pure energy and hope that that energy will generates new particles (with mass), according to E <=> mc2 or m = (1/c2) E!

Take care
David
 

1. What is the concept of mass-energy equivalence?

The concept of mass-energy equivalence is based on Albert Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2. It states that mass and energy are different forms of the same thing and can be converted into each other. In other words, mass and energy are interchangeable and one can be converted into the other.

2. How does the equation E=mc^2 apply to protons?

The equation E=mc^2 applies to all particles with mass, including protons. Protons have a rest mass of approximately 1.67 x 10^-27 kg. When this mass is multiplied by the speed of light squared (c^2), the result is the energy equivalent of a proton, which is about 1.5 x 10^-10 joules.

3. Can protons be created or destroyed using E=mc^2?

No, E=mc^2 does not allow for the creation or destruction of protons. The total energy and mass of a closed system remains constant. However, protons can be converted into other particles, such as neutrons or positrons, through nuclear reactions.

4. How does the mass-energy equivalence affect the behavior of protons?

The mass-energy equivalence has a significant impact on the behavior of protons. It explains the energy released during nuclear reactions, such as those in the sun's core. It also plays a crucial role in particle accelerators, where protons are accelerated to near the speed of light, increasing their energy.

5. Does the mass-energy equivalence have any practical applications?

Yes, the mass-energy equivalence has numerous practical applications. It is the basis of nuclear energy and has led to the development of nuclear power plants. It is also utilized in medical treatments such as radiation therapy for cancer. Additionally, it is essential in understanding the behavior of subatomic particles and the fundamental laws of the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
694
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
350
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
62
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top