Does E=mc2 Work with Different Metric Systems?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jarfi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusion
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of Einstein's equation E=mc² across different metric systems, specifically the International System of Units (SI) and the Imperial system. It is established that consistent units must be used within any calculation to yield valid results; for instance, mass must be in kilograms and velocity in meters per second when using SI units, or mass in slugs and velocity in feet per second for Imperial units. The participants emphasize that mixing units from different systems leads to nonsensical outcomes, and they provide examples demonstrating the conversion between joules and foot-poundals. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that all components of the equation must align within the same unit system for accurate calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's equation E=mc²
  • Knowledge of unit conversion between metric and Imperial systems
  • Familiarity with energy units such as joules and foot-poundals
  • Basic grasp of physics concepts like mass, velocity, and acceleration
NEXT STEPS
  • Learn about unit conversion techniques between SI and Imperial systems
  • Explore the concept of dimensional analysis in physics
  • Study the implications of using consistent units in scientific calculations
  • Investigate the historical development of measurement systems and their applications
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching scientific principles, and professionals in engineering or any field requiring precise calculations involving energy and mass.

Jarfi
Messages
384
Reaction score
12
Ok so I am confused with the face the different metric systems and sizes use different numbers for the same size f.ex. 1000 meters can be 1 km or 100 mph can be 135 km, And the mass can be told in pounds, kg, grams, and more. And energy in calories. So it seems to me that you can get different outcomes when calculating with e=mc2 if you use different systems, its like it doesn't seem right, they use the international metric system, so e is than actually just a number that is (300000)2 times the mass but what if you use a system from usa with (180000)2 times the mass, than you would get a totally different outcome, I don't know if you understand me, it's just that I don't understand how it can work out with man made numbers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pick some quantities and calculate E in English units. Convert your quantities to SI units. Calculate E again. Post your results.
 
In any physical formula, you must use consistent units. If you have mass in kilograms and velocity in miles per hour, the calculated E in E = mc^2 will be nonsense.

In SI, to calculate E measured in joules, m must be measured in kilograms and c must be converted to meters per second.

In imperial units, to calculate E measured in foot-pounds, m must be in slugs and c must be converted to feet per second.
 
Jarfi said:
Ok so I am confused with the face the different metric systems and sizes use different numbers for the same size f.ex. 1000 meters can be 1 km or 100 mph can be 135 km, And the mass can be told in pounds, kg, grams, and more. And energy in calories. So it seems to me that you can get different outcomes when calculating with e=mc2 if you use different systems, its like it doesn't seem right, they use the international metric system, so e is than actually just a number that is (300000)2 times the mass but what if you use a system from usa with (180000)2 times the mass, than you would get a totally different outcome, I don't know if you understand me, it's just that I don't understand how it can work out with man made numbers.

As long as you stay within the same system, it doesn't matter, your answer will come out the same.

Example:

1kg mass
c=300,000,000 m/sec

gives you 9 x 10^16 joules.

converting to fps

1 kg = ~2.2 lbs
c= 990,000,000 ft/sec

gives you ~2.16 x 10^18 ft-poundals

If you convert joules to ft-poundals you will find there are 23.7 ft-poundals to a joule and 9 x10^16 joules = 2.16 x 10^18 ft-poundals. (More or less, I rounded out a bit which means you won't get an exact answer.

The trick is that when you do the calculation, all the units have to be in the same system

You use grams with centimeters, Kg with meters, etc. You can't use kg and ft together, for example.
 
SteamKing said:
In any physical formula, you must use consistent units. If you have mass in kilograms and velocity in miles per hour, the calculated E in E = mc^2 will be nonsense.

In SI, to calculate E measured in joules, m must be measured in kilograms and c must be converted to meters per second.

In imperial units, to calculate E measured in foot-pounds, m must be in slugs and c must be converted to feet per second.




This is what has been confusing me! Why does kmph
fit with kg and not pounds or ounces, if i where to create my own measuring system, how would i coordinate speed and energy to make it work out. Why do some measuring units work together but others dont? Why is it better to use foot with pounds than with kiloes?
 
Jarfi said:
This is what has been confusing me! Why does kmph
fit with kg and not pounds or ounces, if i where to create my own measuring system, how would i coordinate speed and energy to make it work out. Why do some measuring units work together but others dont? Why is it better to use foot with pounds than with kiloes?

Units in a system work because there exist a well defined conventions of what the derived units are. You could of course make a system that uses basic units form other systems but then you have to define other derived units. An example J=Kg*m^2/s^2 but Kg*ft^2/s^2 =X which is still a valid unit of energy, X=0.093J. Not much of a point of doing this though.
 
Jarfi said:
This is what has been confusing me! Why does kmph
fit with kg and not pounds or ounces, if i where to create my own measuring system, how would i coordinate speed and energy to make it work out. Why do some measuring units work together but others dont? Why is it better to use foot with pounds than with kiloes?

All the parts of your equation have to equal the unit for energy your using, for example Joules (J):
J= kg(m/s)2
In order to get the energy in Joules you have to have all of those components in your mathematical equation.
So if:
E= J and J= kg(m/s)2

Then:
E= kg(m/s)2
-------------------
If:
E= kg(m/s)2 and E= Mc2

Then:
kg(m/s)2= Mc2
--------------------
If:
kg(m/s)2= Mc2 and M=kg

Then:
kg(m/s)2= (kg)c2
--------------------
If:
kg(m/s)2= (kg)c2 and c= (m/s)

Then:
kg(m/s)2= kg(m/s)2

That's why you have to use kg for m and such. You still can solve an equation using other units but we don't have simple words for those units like Joules you'd have to write out the unit.
 
Janus said:
As long as you stay within the same system, it doesn't matter, your answer will come out the same.
I beg to differ.

As long as you stay within a consistent set of units, it doesn't matter.

SI comprises a consistent set of units (so long as you steer clear of archaic units such as calories). The standard English system, with mass expressed in pounds mass, force in pounds force, energy in BTUs is anything but consistent.

A consistent set of units has
  • 1 unit of energy = 1 unit of length * 1 unit of force
  • 1 unit of force = 1 unit of mass * 1 unit of acceleration
  • 1 unit of acceleration = 1 unit of velocity / 1 unit of time
  • 1 unit of velocity = 1 unit of length / 1 unit of time

An inconsistent set of units requires the use of values other than one in the above. For example, when force is expressed in pounds force, mass is expressed in pounds mass, and acceleration is expressed in ft/sec2 you get 1 unit of force = 1 unit of mass * 32.17404855643 units of acceleration.
There's a very good reason scientists prefer to work with consistent units. To steal a phrase from Steve Jobs, "It just works".
 
Energy(J)=Force(N)*Distance(m)=
distance(m)*(Δmomentum(kgms-1)/time(s))=Energy(kgm2s-2)Energy=Mass(kg)*(speedlight(ms-1))2=Energy(kgm2s-2)


See those units at the end of both? They are the same units. Therefore... the equation works.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K