Derivation of E=pc & E=MC2: Which Came First?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter imsmooth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation E=mc2
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation and historical precedence of the equations E=pc and E=mc², exploring their interrelationship and the context of their development within the framework of relativistic physics. Participants examine the derivations, implications, and conceptual understanding of these equations, with references to relativistic mass and energy-momentum relations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that E=pc can be derived from E=mc² and vice versa, suggesting a circular reasoning in their derivation.
  • Others propose that E=pc is simply the relativistic dispersion relation for massless particles.
  • One participant mentions that both equations stem from the relativistic energy-momentum relation, referencing an external article for clarification.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the validity of Einstein's original proofs of E=mc², with claims that they contained mistakes.
  • Several participants discuss the concept of relativistic mass and its implications for understanding momentum and energy, with some arguing against its utility in modern physics.
  • There are claims that all relativistic effects can be attributed to the increase of mass with velocity, while others challenge this notion, stating it is not a useful concept.
  • One participant describes a thought experiment involving a pulse of light to illustrate the relationship between force, momentum, and energy.
  • Another participant expresses confusion over the validity of using a rationalization approach instead of a rigorous derivation, questioning the implications of such reasoning.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the derivation and interpretation of E=pc and E=mc², with no consensus reached on the correctness of the various claims or the utility of relativistic mass.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference external sources and articles to support their claims, while others highlight the limitations of using relativistic mass in explanations. There is also mention of the need for rigorous derivations versus rationalizations, indicating a divide in approaches to understanding the concepts discussed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying relativistic physics, particularly in understanding the nuances of energy-momentum relations and the historical context of Einstein's equations.

  • #61
Einstein's 1935 derivation of the equivalence of mass and energy:
https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.bams/1183498131

From an elastic eccentric collision scenario with 2 particles with equal mass, he derives (using a unit system with ##c=1##), that the relativistic momentum ##m\gamma \vec{v}## and the relativistic kinetic energy ##m(\gamma-1)## of the system are conserved in any inertial reference frame. He makes use of the symmetry in the center-of-momentum frame and the Lorentz-transformation.

Then he considers an inelastic collision between 2 particles with equal mass and equal rest-energy ##E_0##. He derives from the energy law for the system, that ##E_0## and ##m## of the particles change equally, and that therefore
$$E_0=m$$
in ##E=E_0+m(\gamma -1)##.

He concludes:
Einstein (1935) said:
If, from the beginning, we had provided the expression for the impulse with a mass-constant different from that of the energy, these considerations would show that the impulse-mass changes in an inelastic collision like the energy-mass. This is a partial justification for setting both mass-constants equal to each other.

The result of this consideration is therefore as follows. If for collisions of material points the conservation laws are to hold for an arbitrary (Lorentz) coordinate-system, the well known expressions for impulse and energy follow, as well as the validity of the principle of equivalence of mass and rest-energy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbergman
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
The important point is that ##E/c=(E_0+E_{\text{kin}})/c## together with ##\vec{p}## forms a four-vector. The methodological breakthru has been Minkowski's formulation of SR spacetime as a 4D pseudo-Euclidean affine manifold!
 
  • #63
vanhees71 said:
The important point is that ##E/c=(E_0+E_{\text{kin}})/c## together with ##\vec{p}## forms a four-vector. The methodological breakthru has been Minkowski's formulation of SR spacetime as a 4D pseudo-Euclidean affine manifold!
Yes. In the 1935 paper of Einstein, that I linked, he started with the definition of the four-momentum and did the momentum-calculations for the elastic collision for all 4 dimensions, see his 4 equation(s) number (1) on page 226.

Einstein said:
We remark that the equations (1) can be derived more clearly if one considers directly the transformation for the sum of the four-vectors of the velocities of a particle-pair. I have chosen the above representation, however, because the conservation laws indicate the use of this 3-dimensionally inhomogeneous manner of writing.
Source:
https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.bams/1183498131

I think he did not want to give up completely the relation to the understanding of 3-momentum and energy in classical mechanics for didactical reasons.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
imsmooth said:
I have seen E=pc used to derive E=MC2. I have seen E=MC2 used to derive E=pc. This is circuitous. Which came first and how is E=pc derived?

From relativistic formula
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
we get ##E=pc## by making ##m=0## for photon and other massless particles.

Mass does not apply for a single photon, so let us prepare N photon gas of same wavelength and no total momentum in a theorotetical massless sphere vessel. In experiments done in the rest frame of this photon ball, it would show inertia and a source of gravity m, i.e.
m=\frac{Npc}{c^2}=\frac{E}{c^2}
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: lomidrevo and vanhees71
  • #65
mitochan said:
Mass does not apply for a single photon, so let us prepare N photon gas of same wavelength and no total momentum in a theorotetical massless sphere vessel.
Now assume instead a light-clock at rest in frame ##S## containing 2 photons, each with an energy of ##L##, moving always in opposite direction between the mirrors at the top and at the bottom. Then the energy-content of this light-clock is ##E_0 = 2L##.

In this reference frame ##S##, the two mirrors are removed at the same time. One photon escapes now from the light clock in y-direction, the other in (-y)-direction.

Assume a frame ##S'##, moving constantly with ##v## in positive x-direction. Two observers are at the same x'-coordinate, but at y'-coordinates with opposite signs.

Described in ##S##, those oberserves in ##S'## (with time-dilated clocks) must receive the photons each blue-shifted with energy
##L' = L \gamma (1 - \frac{v}{c} * \cos{90°}) = \gamma L##, according to Einstein's Doppler-formula.
(In frame ##S'##, the blue-shift comes from aberration.)

So in frame ##S'##, the energy content of the light clock must have been ##E = 2L' = \gamma E_0## before loosing the photons. That means:

$$E_{kin} = mc^2(\gamma -1)= E -E_0 = E_0(\gamma -1)$$

Plausibility-check to classical mechanics (using for x << 1: ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-x}}\approx 1+\frac{1}{2}x##):
##mc^2(\gamma -1) \approx \frac {1}{2}mv^2##

This is a similar, but simpified argumentation as in Einstein 1905:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mitochan and vanhees71
  • #66
Example from classical mechanics:
kinetic energy = ##\int \vec F \cdot d\vec s = \int (m*\vec a) \, d\vec s = \int (m*\frac{d\vec v}{dt}) \, d\vec s = m\int \vec v \cdot d\vec v = \frac{1}{2}mv^2 + const_2##

With ##a=\gamma^3 a_0## (follows from relativistic velocity addition) and if the force is in direction of movement:

relativistic kinetic energy = ##\int F \cdot ds = m \int \gamma^3 a_0 \cdot ds = m \int \gamma^3 \frac{dv}{dt} \cdot ds = m\int_0^v \gamma^3 v \cdot d v = mc^2(\gamma -1) ##

Source (see after Einsteins definition of "longitudinal mass"):
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Correction to last posting:

With proper acceleration ##\alpha=\gamma^3 a## (follows from relativistic velocity addition) and if the force is in direction of movement:

relativistic kinetic energy = ##\int F \cdot ds = \int m\alpha \cdot ds = m \int \gamma^3 a \cdot ds = m \int \gamma^3 \frac{dv}{dt} \cdot ds = m\int_0^v \gamma^3 v \cdot d v = mc^2(\gamma -1) ##

Source (see after Einsteins definition of "longitudinal mass"):
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Electrodynamics_of_Moving_Bodies

The integral can be calculated via:
https://www.integral-calculator.com/
 
Last edited:
  • #68
Addition to above posting #67:

If the force is in direction of movement, the formula ##F = m\gamma^3 a## can also be derived from the relativistic momentum:

##F = \frac{d}{dt}(m\gamma v) = m \frac{d}{dv}(\gamma v) \frac{dv}{dt} = m\gamma^3 a##

The derivative ##\frac{d}{dv}(\gamma v)## can be calculated via:
https://www.derivative-calculator.net/
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
7K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K