Can you reverse Einstein's famous E=mc^2 equation?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the misconceptions surrounding Einstein's equation E=mc², specifically the idea of reversing the equation to convert energy back into matter. Participants clarify that E=mc² illustrates the equivalence of mass and energy, emphasizing that energy is not a standalone substance but a property of matter and fields. The conversation highlights the importance of addressing misunderstandings in relativity rather than engaging in high-level theoretical discussions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity
  • Familiarity with the concepts of mass-energy equivalence
  • Basic knowledge of physics terminology
  • Awareness of common misconceptions in popular science
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of mass-energy equivalence in modern physics
  • Study the principles of relativity and their applications
  • Explore the concept of energy as a property of matter and fields
  • Investigate common misconceptions in scientific discussions and how to address them
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators, and anyone interested in clarifying misconceptions about relativity and the nature of energy and mass.

gabi123
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
E=mc^2 states that when you speed up matter to the speed of light, it becomes pure energy, of mc^2 joules. Now, if that is true, can you reverse the equation? Wouldn't energy speed up to the negative speed of light(-c^2), turn into matter? Or is that the wrong balance?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gabi123 said:
E=mc^2 states that when you speed up matter to the speed of light, it becomes pure energy, of mc^2 joules.
No it does not state that. It states that the mass in any object corresponds to an equivalent amount of energy - relating the energy of an object to its inertia. Also note that there is no such thing as "pure energy". Energy is a property of matter and fields, not a substance of its own.

gabi123 said:
Now, if that is true
It is not, so I will not comment on the rest of your post.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Orodruin said:
No it does not state that. It states that the mass in any object corresponds to an equivalent amount of energy - relating the energy of an object to its inertia. Also note that there is no such thing as "pure energy". Energy is a property of matter and fields, not a substance of its own.It is not, so I will not comment on the rest of your post.
It is true to the extent that a certain amount of energy can be the equivalent amount of mass.
 
lychette said:
It is true to the extent that a certain amount of energy can be the equivalent amount of mass.
Did you even read the OP? The first sentence in the OP is simply false and makes no sense in relativity.
 
Orodruin said:
Did you even read the OP? The first sentence in the OP is simply false and makes no sense in relativity.
I did read the first statement but it in no way contradicts his/her later statement that energy can be converted into mass according to the theory of relativity.
My contribution relates to that second statement.
 
lychette said:
I did read the first statement but it in no way contradicts his/her later statement that energy can be converted into mass according to the theory of relativity.
My contribution relates to that second statement.
Please read the statement again. It refers to reversing "when you speed up matter to the speed of light, it becomes pure energy", which is pure nonsense in itself.
 
Orodruin said:
which is pure nonsense in itself

Funny, I thought that's what I wrote.

Since the whole premise of this thread is based on something incorrect, what do we have to discuss?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vanadium 50 said:
Funny, I thought that's what I wrote.

Since the hole premise of this thread is based on something incorrect, what do we have to discuss?
It was, but you deleted that post.

At B level, I think the important thing is to straighten out people's misconceptions rather than having a high level discussion. If we cannot do this, then what is the point of a B level thread? Nobody should expect (or engage in!) high level discussions at B level. Having misconceptions - often fueled by popular science - is not directly equivalent to being a crackpot.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nugatory and berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K