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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Einstein's equation E=mc², specifically questioning whether it can be reversed to suggest that energy could transform back into matter. Participants explore the implications of the equation in the context of relativity and address misconceptions about its meaning.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that E=mc² indicates mass corresponds to an equivalent amount of energy, emphasizing that energy is a property of matter and fields, not a standalone substance.
  • Others challenge the initial premise of the thread, arguing that the claim about matter becoming "pure energy" at the speed of light is incorrect and nonsensical within the framework of relativity.
  • There is a discussion about the validity of reversing the equation, with some participants suggesting that energy can indeed be converted into mass according to relativity, while others dispute the initial assumptions leading to this conclusion.
  • One participant expresses concern that the thread's foundation is based on misconceptions, questioning the value of continuing the discussion if the premise is flawed.
  • Another participant highlights the importance of addressing misconceptions rather than engaging in high-level discussions, suggesting that misunderstandings should be clarified.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the interpretation of E=mc² and the validity of the initial claims made in the thread. There is no consensus on whether the premise of reversing the equation is meaningful or correct.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in understanding the nuances of relativity and the implications of E=mc², with some participants relying on popular science interpretations that may not align with established scientific principles.

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

High School The relationship between mc^2 and mc^2 x 1/2
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Undergrad Deriving e=mc^2, how is it possible?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad Uncovering a Decent Proof of E=mc^2
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
High School Is E=mc² the Formula for the Speed of Light?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
High School What is the meaning of the famous equation E=mc^2?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
High School c^2 in Einstein‘s theory of relativity
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Einstein's E=mc^2 equation -- question....
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School How does Einstein's equation work? Why do we need to square c?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
High School Why Isn't Work Equal to Einstein's E=mc²?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate E=mc^2, Gravitational Potential & Energy Balance
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K