E = mc^2: Identity or equality

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pmb_phy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Identity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the distinction between inertial mass and relativistic mass in the context of the equation E = mc². Participants argue that inertial mass is defined in terms of momentum (p = mv) and that E represents total energy minus potential energy. The relationship E = mc² is derived, establishing it as an equality rather than an identity. The conversation also touches on the redundancy of the term "relativistic mass" in modern physics, emphasizing the need for clarity in terminology.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of relativistic physics concepts, particularly inertial mass and energy.
  • Familiarity with the momentum four-vector in special relativity.
  • Knowledge of the definitions of total energy and potential energy in physics.
  • Awareness of historical perspectives on mass and energy from physicists like Tolman, Feynman, and Goldstein.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of E = mc² and its implications in modern physics.
  • Study the differences between invariant mass and relativistic mass in detail.
  • Explore the concept of momentum four-vectors and their applications in relativity.
  • Examine the historical context of mass-energy equivalence and its evolution in physics literature.
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of relativity, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of mass and energy in modern physics.

pmb_phy
Messages
2,950
Reaction score
1
Some people refer to the relationship between inertial mass m (aka "relativistic mass") and inertial energy E as an identity and some refer to it as an equality. Inertial mass has never been defined as m = E/c2.

Inertial mass is always defined as the m in p = mv (e.g. Tolman, Feynman, French etc. etc. etc.). The E in that equation is always defined as the total energy of a particle minus the potential energy of position, V(r) (although some people use different letters for, such as T, for E. E.g. Goldstein - 3rd Ed.). The relationship E = mc2 must then be derived which thereby makes it an equality rather than an identity.

My question is to those who hold it to be an identiy is - Why?

Thanks

Pete
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Inertial mass is not relativistic mass as I have mathematically proven here in the past. Relativistic mass has no place in modern relativity as it is just a redundant name for relativistic energy which is defined as the time element of the momentum four-vector of the first kind. From the definition of the momentum four-vector of the second kind one has
[tex]P^{0} = p^{0} + (q/c)\phi ^{0}[/tex]
This yields
[tex]E_{R} = E_{tot} - E_{pot}[/tex]
[tex]E_{R}[/tex] is the relativistic energy and what is innapropriately called relativistic mass. You also missname energy parameter by total energy as well which is unfortunate, but even if by that mistake you have identified relativistic mass with the energy parameter instead of the total energy, you have still "identified" it with an energy. That should end your questioning whether it is an identity because even though you have identified it with the wrong energy, you have still "identified" it yourself.
To see more about what I am referring to conserning the different kinds of momentum four-vectors see
http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/chap3.htm
 
Last edited:
Okay, pmb, how many threads do you intend to start that have no purpose other than discussing the semantics of the invariant mass view vs. the relativistic mass view? This same discussion has already been had countless times on this forum. I've given you the opportunity to write an essay supporting your views, which we will happy to host for you. You have ignored that opportunity, and continue to start threads about the same topics. I regard this thread as spamming.

- Warren
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
7K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
11K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K