Can F=ma and e=mc² Be Combined Through Their Common Variable m?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter goodjobbro
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    E=mc^2 F=ma
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the potential relationship between the equations F=ma and E=mc², focusing on the common variable "m" and whether they can be combined or compared in the context of classical and relativistic physics. Participants examine the implications of mass in both equations and the conditions under which these equations apply, including considerations of acceleration and relativistic effects.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the equations can be combined due to the common variable "m", suggesting that if acceleration increases, mass must decrease to maintain a constant speed of light.
  • Others argue that the mass in E=mc² refers to rest mass, which is different from the mass in F=ma, which is considered constant in Newtonian mechanics.
  • A later reply questions the validity of using F=ma in relativistic contexts, stating that the correct formulation involves four-vectors and proper time.
  • Some participants clarify that E=mc² represents the energy content of a body, not its kinetic energy, and that the equations apply under different physical conditions.
  • There is mention of the incomplete nature of E=mc², with a reference to its true form involving momentum, indicating that changes in velocity affect energy content.
  • One participant notes that the method of using F=ma is only valid at low speeds, and relativistic effects must be considered at high speeds.
  • Another participant suggests that if one attempts to apply F=ma in relativity, different masses may be obtained for transverse and longitudinal accelerations.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of defining force and mass in different contexts, with some suggesting that Newton's assumptions about mass were based on classical conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the compatibility of the two equations and the implications of mass in each context. Multiple competing views remain regarding the application of F=ma in relativistic scenarios and the interpretation of mass in both equations.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on definitions of mass (rest mass vs. invariant mass), the unresolved nature of how to apply classical mechanics in relativistic contexts, and the assumptions made about the conditions under which these equations hold true.

goodjobbro
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Could this two equations be used together, since they have a common variable "m"?

For example, you could deduce that the speed of light = sqrt(a*m), and since the speed of light is a constant, if acceleration goes up, then mass must go down.

Is this true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
goodjobbro said:
Could this two equations be used together, since they have a common variable "m"?

For example, you could deduce that the speed of light = sqrt(a*m), and since the speed of light is a constant, if acceleration goes up, then mass must go down.

Is this true?

Not really. You see, in e=mc^2 , e is the rest energy of a body and m is the rest mass of the body, which is different from the mass when the body is in motion. This is derived in special relativity as a result of the speed of light being the same for all inertial observers. You can research more: look up Lorentz transformation. You'll get the derivation of E=mc^2.

As for F=ma , this is Newtonian mechanics which is completely different from special relativity. Here, m is the mass of the body which is assumed to be unchanged even if the body is moving. Therefore, the m in each equation aren't really the same.

(That's what I think. Maybe someone can further elaborate on this.)
 
goodjobbro said:
Could this two equations be used together, since they have a common variable "m"?

Sure. Let's say you don't know the mass of an object. If you apply a force to it and measure the acceleration, you can get the mass. Knowing this you could use E=MC2 to find the energy content of the objects mass. In this case E=(F/A)C2

Vahsek said:
Not really. You see, in e=mc^2 , e is the rest energy of a body and m is the rest mass of the body, which is different from the mass when the body is in motion. This is derived in special relativity as a result of the speed of light being the same for all inertial observers. You can research more: look up Lorentz transformation. You'll get the derivation of E=mc^2.

As for F=ma , this is Newtonian mechanics which is completely different from special relativity. Here, m is the mass of the body which is assumed to be unchanged even if the body is moving. Therefore, the m in each equation aren't really the same.

(That's what I think. Maybe someone can further elaborate on this.)

Not quite. In both equations the M stands for mass. Mass in the equation E=MC2 is also know as "rest mass" or "invariant mass". It does not change when you change the momentum of an object. In fact, the equation is actually incomplete.
It's true form is E2=M2C4 + P2C2, where P is the objects momentum. Increasing or decreasing the velocity of an object changes its momentum, and thus its energy content.
 
No, because F = ma is not correct in special relativity. The correct version of Newton's law is

F_\nu = \frac{dp_\nu}{d\tau}

Which are four-vectors and proper time respectively.
 
Drakkith said:
Sure. Let's say you don't know the mass of an object. If you apply a force to it and measure the acceleration, you can get the mass. Knowing this you could use E=MC2 to find the energy content of the objects mass. In this case E=(F/A)C2



Not quite. In both equations the M stands for mass. Mass in the equation E=MC2 is also know as "rest mass" or "invariant mass". It does not change when you change the momentum of an object. In fact, the equation is actually incomplete.
It's true form is E2=M2C4 + P2C2, where P is the objects momentum. Increasing or decreasing the velocity of an object changes its momentum, and thus its energy content.

dipole said:
No, because F = ma is not correct in special relativity. The correct version of Newton's law is

F_\nu = \frac{dp_\nu}{d\tau}

Which are four-vectors and proper time respectively.

Drakkit, dipole is right. The method you explained works only for very small speeds compared to that of light. F=ma is no longer accurate at very high speeds. You're not taking into account the the different inertial frames of reference.

For instance you cannot use F=ma for an object traveling at 99.99% the speed of light. Here you'll need to use four-vectors.
 
Vahsek said:
Drakkit, dipole is right. The method you explained works only for very small speeds compared to that of light. F=ma is no longer accurate at very high speeds. You're not taking into account the the different inertial frames of reference.

For instance you cannot use F=ma for an object traveling at 99.99% the speed of light. Here you'll need to use four-vectors.

Ah, that makes sense. I was only thinking of a local reference frame where you are at low velocities, such as measuring the acceleration of a ball in a lab, not one where the object was at relativistic speeds.
 
I agree with the above and would like to add that if you try to solve F=m*a in relativity then you will obtain a different mass for transverse accelerations and different for longitudinal.
In general, E=mc**2 doesn't refer to the kinetic energy of a particle or something. It is its energy content, the energy that it will unleash if it annihilates with an antiparticle.
It's actually different physics.
 
dipole said:
No, because F = ma is not correct in special relativity. The correct version of Newton's law is

F_\nu = \frac{dp_\nu}{d\tau}

Which are four-vectors and proper time respectively.

You do not need four-vectors and proper time. The original F=dp/dt also works in special relativity. It results in

F = [a+v·(v·a)/(c²-v²)]·E/c²
 
You just have to use the right p! (or m)
 
  • #10
IMO, the basic premise of your argument;

goodjobbro said:
If acceleration goes up, then mass must go down.
Is this true?

is true, despite 'math-osophical' issues.

If you take the mass of light as 0, then your equation: 'c = sqrt (a*m)' = 0. //(unless sqrt 0 = infinity? any mathematicians there to help? BODMAS starts with B right??)

I suppose Newton took a 'perfect' motive mass in an Earth like atmosphere to be invariant, as Einstein took light in 'perfect' vacuum to be invariant.. (but that's just retroactive armchair psychology!).
 
  • #11
VCortex said:
I suppose Newton took a 'perfect' motive mass in an Earth like atmosphere to be invariant

Defining force as F=dp/dt with invariant mass would be foolish and Newton wasn't a fool. But I guess he considered variable mass for open systems only because I can't imagine that he was in doubt about Galilei transformation.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Can one get E=mc^2 using classical EM theory?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School The relationship between mc^2 and mc^2 x 1/2
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Undergrad Best Derivation of E=mc^2 - Fdx = V^2 dm
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Undergrad Variable mass F=ma versus Rocket F=ma
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Calculating the Planck Length
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Undergrad Need a practical example of E=mc^2 with real numbers
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Spring Problem Involving Variables and Constants Only
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about deriving E=mc^2
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Undergrad Energy in the Schwarzschild spacetime
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Undergrad Updates on the experiments X17
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
12K