The discussion centers around the rearrangement of the equation E=mc² to explore the implications of using reduced Planck's constant in calculating mass. Participants examine the validity of assumptions regarding time units and the physical meaning of derived quantities, engaging in a technical exploration of mass, energy, and the nature of constants in physics.
Participants generally disagree on the validity of the assumptions made regarding time units and the physical implications of the calculations. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the interpretation of the equations and the significance of the derived quantities.
Some participants note that the assumptions about time and the use of constants may lead to arbitrary or nonsensical results, but these limitations are not fully resolved within the discussion.
That's an absolutely arbitrary amount of time. Why not an hour? Or a day? There is nothing special about 1 second.Kazz said:I know, but I'm assuming 1 sec
I read your remark as implying that K^2's replies have been unhelpful. In fact, they provide a sound basis for answering your question. Is it likely that 1 second is a such a special duration of time that there is a particle of energy ℏ/(1 second) joules?Kazz said:Why are people like this on the forums.
Physics Forums. If you were looking for science fiction forums, that's two doors down.Kazz said:Why are people like this on the forums.
Yes. One times h-bar is h-bar. One times anything is same anything. But h-bar doesn't have units of energy. Multiplying by 1 doesn't change that. You need to multiply by a quantity that has units of inverse time. For example, [itex]\hbar \omega[/itex] is energy of a photon with angular frequency ω. But that frequency has to come from somewhere. You can't just grab an arbitrary number.And so one times that equals well... H-bar
Exactly. 1 x some quantity of energy is still a quantity of energy. 1 second x some quantity of energy is a quantity of action. But 1 second is an arbitrary period. Why not one year?Kazz said:Not 1... 1 second.
Unlike number 1, quantity 1 second is not a true unit. 1 second is also 1000 miliseconds. It is also 1/60th of a minute. It only has the number 1 in its description because of the choice of duration of a second. The moment I change the duration of a second, that number is no longer 1. So why in the world would multiplying by one second ever give you any significant value?Kazz said:Not 1... 1 second.
Planck's constant, like any universal constant (such as velocity of light in vacuo), is independent of the units it's expressed in. In joule-seconds it's about 6.626×10−34. In electron-volt-years it would be 1.31 x 10-22. By your logic, you would divide that by one year and obtain 4.136×10−15 eV as some special quantity of energy. Or do the same with fortnights, millennia, ... and generate all sorts of magical numbers.Kazz said:If you were to divide h-bar by one second wouldn't the seconds cancel out?
I was not being sarcastic. The most effective way to point out a flaw in an argument is often to demonstrate its most absurd consequences. Reductio, as they say, ad absurdum. Nothing else was working.Kazz said:I really wish I could post stuff here without being bashed for mistakes and explained POLITELY why it's wrong and not with sarcasm and rudeness.
Other way around. For rest mass, the equation is E²=p²c²+(mc²)². Though, convention is to reserve the symbol 'm' for rest mass. In which case, the first equation should be written as E=γmc².FeynmanIsCool said:The m in E=mc2 is "rest mass", not relativistic mass.
K^2 said:Other way around. For rest mass, the equation is E²=p²c²+(mc²)². Though, convention is to reserve the symbol 'm' for rest mass. In which case, the first equation should be written as E=γmc².