Does E really = MC squared?

Have a running debate with a friend of mine that says if I run 1 mile then I will have burned the same energy when I walk a mile. I say that since E=MC2, then the amount of energy I burn increases exponentially as I increase my rate of travel. Does anyone have a difinitive answer to this question? Could you possibly quote sources or provide a URL to an essay or article that explains this?

 

[Integral]

Your body must convert chemical potential energy to kinetic energy in order to run. Assume a flat track. Since kinetic energy is

E_k=.5mv²

since your your mass is pretty much constant, we only need be concerned with velocity, clearly, your velocity is higher if you run, therefore it requires more energy to run a mile then to walk.


E=mc² does not enter into the problem.

 

Thanks

Ok that makes sense. What about if two Cars traveled the same distance, but one went twice as fast. Would E=MC2 come into play then? If not, would you still use the Ek=.5mv2 equation to calculate the amount of energy it takes, and if so wouldn't that have the same answer (yes the faster car would use/take more energy to get it from A to B)?

 

[chroot]

E=mc² does not come into play in any of these scenarios.

The faster you move through air, the more drag you suffer -- and drag (wind resistance) depends on the square of the velocity. If you move twice as fast, you experience four times as much wind resistance. You have to provide the power to balance that wind resistance and continue moving at your desired pace.

I will say that muscles are not very ideal physical things. For example, if you hold a 20 lb weight over your head in mid-air, exactly in position, you are doing no work -- in the physical sense. The position of the weight is not changing, therefore no work is being done. If you put the weight down on the table, you'll see that the table doesn't seem to have to do anything to support the weight -- the table is investing no energy. However, to hold the weight over your head is a very difficult thing, and it will eventually get you to huff and puff and feel tired. Why? Because your mucles are not rigid! The individual cells constantly contract and then release and then contract again. Each contraction takes further energy.

So it's difficult to calculate how much energy you'll burn in running a mile -- very many physiological things come into play that make it a hard problem. For an ideal physical system, though, moving an object a mile down the road uses E = (force used to overcome friction) * (distance). The drag forces and so on are lumped into the friction force.

So what does E=mc² mean? Well, c is a velocity -- but a special one. It's the "natural velocity," or the only velocity in the universe that seems to have special qualities. Those qualities are:

1) Anything moving at c (light, for example) appears to be moving at c for any observer who cares to look at it.
2) c appears to be the ultimate limit of velocities. No matter what you do, you'll never be able to concoct a situation in which an observer will measure something going faster than c.

E=mc² unifies the concepts of mass and energy -- that's all. In many cases, people take c = 1 by using (for example) the second as a unit of time, and the light-second as a unit of distance. If you make this choice of units, then you just have

E = m.

Energy and mass then, in fact, are one and the same. The consequences of this relationship are far too numerous to list, but here are a few:

1) An atomic bomb weighs a little less after it explodes.
2) Magnets weigh a little more when they're separated than when they're together.
3) The Sun is slowly losing mass, as it converts it to light.

- Warren

 

argh

Ok Warren. Thanks for the post, but I'm not sure this really settles the bet. Would object X, consume more, less, or the same amount of energy when traveling from point A (let's assume these objects are moving through a vacuum - drag was not intended to be part of the equation), to point B than object Z if object Z traveled twice as fast?

 

[chroot]

If there is no friction, then no work is done at all in moving a body between two points at the same gravitational potential. For example, if you have an air-hockey table, it takes zero energy to move a puck from one side of the table to other. It takes energy to accelerate the puck, but the energy could be (in principle) reclaimed as you slow it back down.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

And the settlement of the bet is this: he's wrong. The energy used to run vs. walk a mile is certainly different, because of the physiological things I already mentioned, as well as the increased drag when running.

However, your E=mc² argument is just based on misconceptions.

As a result, you win the bet, but not because you correctly proved him wrong.

- Warren

 

So I guess I didn't and still don't really understand what E=MC squared since I had previously believed that equation would apply to any object in motion. Energy = Mass x Velocity (squared). In other words I had previously believed that as the speed of an object increases the energy required to propel it also increases exponentially. By that logic, if you traveled the same distance at twice the speed, the energy required to get there would have increased significantly, but I guess this is wrong? I'm still unclear on this. Please advise.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by ando
So I guess I didn't and still don't really understand what E=MC squared since I had previously believed that equation would apply to any object in motion. Energy = Mass x Velocity (squared). In other words I had previously believed that as the speed of an object increases the energy required to propel it also increases exponentially. By that logic, if you traveled the same distance at twice the speed, the energy required to get there would have increased significantly, but I guess this is wrong? I'm still unclear on this. Please advise.

Yes, this is wrong. c is not any velocity, it is a single particular velocity. c is a conversion factor between the metric units of mass (kilograms) and energy (joules). c is not a variable in that equation, it's a constant. Its only purpose is to relate those metric units.

If you choose to use "natural units," like the second and light-second, the conversion factor is just one, and you're left with just E = m.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure anyone still really explained why e=mc^2 doesn't apply here. It doesn't apply because it is a description of the conversion of matter to energy and vice versa. Ie, it only applies to nuclear reactions. There are no nuclear reactions going on when you run/walk a mile.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ie, it only applies to nuclear reactions.

That is absolutely incorrect. It seems correct because only nuclear reactions demonstrate the effect strongly enough to be easily measurable -- but in fact, E = mc² applies to a great many systems not involving any nuclei. I gave a couple of examples.

- Warren

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by ando
So I guess I didn't and still don't really understand what E=MC squared since I had previously believed that equation would apply to any object in motion. Energy = Mass x Velocity (squared). In other words I had previously believed that as the speed of an object increases the energy required to propel it also increases exponentially. By that logic, if you traveled the same distance at twice the speed, the energy required to get there would have increased significantly, but I guess this is wrong? I'm still unclear on this. Please advise.

no, in a sense you are absolutly correct. the problem is that the effect is in no way noticable to objects traveling at running or driving speeds. it is only as one increases near the speed of light that he would be burduned down by the effects of E=MC2.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by maximus
it is only as one increases near the speed of light that he would be burduned down by the effects of E=MC2.

Uh... thanks Maximus. Unless you mean "the effects of relativity," you are wrong.

- Warren

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by chroot
Uh... thanks Maximus. Unless you mean "the effects of relativity," you are wrong.

- Warren

the effects of relativity and e=mc2 are very similar and in some cases dependant on each other. as one approaches the speed of light the energy inherent in their movement (because E=MC2) adds to their mass. if one didn't know E=Mc2 they'd have a hard time understanding the effects of relativity.

 

[chroot]

Uh, maximus... E = mc² is one of the equations derived from the postulates of relativity. They aren't two unrelated things. I took offense to your wording: you don't experience effects from equations; you experience effects from phenomena which are perhaps described by equations.

- Warren

 

You mean, result from equation (due to equation).

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by chroot
I took offense to your wording

i am sorry. i, of course, meant no offense.

 

[Integral]

Lets point this back to the original question.

To summerize what has been said.
1. This is not a problem in relativity, because we are assuming speeds which we encounter in our daily lives, walking, running and driving.

2. We are not converting mass to energy so E= mc², which it a statement the rest mass energy equivelent is not a factor and need not be considered.

3. This IS a problem of Newtonian Forces and Energy. So the important relationships are.
Kinetic Energy
i) E_k, = .5mv²
and Newtons 3rd (?)
ii) F = ma

As well as conservation of Energy (to a certian extent)

We will so need to understand

iii) v = at (assume stating from v=0
in these equations
v=velocity
a=acceleration
t=time
m=mass
F=Force
E_k= Kinetic Energy

So, let us start with some body at rest (v=0) To increase the velocity to something greater then 0 we must apply a force. By equation ii, this force will cause an acceleration, over time by equation (iii) the acceleration will increase the velocity.

Now by (i) we can see that the Kinetic energy of a body depends on the mass and the velocity, so we can see that how much energy is required to accelerate a body depends on the final velocity. This of course is a MINIMUN number, if there is any friction in the system it represents lost energy.

Now by the conservation of energy we must be converting some form of energy to kinetic energy, for the human body and the car this is chemical energy stored in our muscles or in gasoline, we must expend an amount of energy at least equivilent to the kinetic energy of the moving body.

Our body does not regain such energy when we slow down, if fact just the opposite is true, slowing down is every bit as much an acceleration as speeding up so we must spend more energy to stop.

The human body is a very complex chemical engine, it is better to learn the fundamental physics by considering simpler systems.

FURTHER POSTS SHALL NOT MENTION RELATIVITY! THERE IS NO NEED, ONLY CONFUSION THERE!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by chroot
That is absolutely incorrect. It seems correct because only nuclear reactions demonstrate the effect strongly enough to be easily measurable -- but in fact, E = mc² applies to a great many systems not involving any nuclei. I gave a couple of examples.

- Warren

Well actually, you gave 2 examples of nuclear reactions and one I wasn't familiar with. Point taken though. Nuclear reactions are by far the most commmon use for e=mc^2.

 

Originally posted by ando
Have a running debate with a friend of mine that says if I run 1 mile then I will have burned the same energy when I walk a mile. I say that since E=MC2, then the amount of energy I burn increases exponentially as I increase my rate of travel. Does anyone have a difinitive answer to this question? Could you possibly quote sources or provide a URL to an essay or article that explains this?

I doubt that what you're friend said is true. The human body is a pretty complicated machine and as such does not work like a simple machine. When jogging the legs are doing more work since there is a lifting action which is absent in walking. Then there is other effects like cooling and the energy require to evaporate water etc. Far too complicated to derive in simple equations. I have a text on exercise phisiology - I'll look this up later tonight and get back tommorow.

E = mc^2 only means that the total amount of energy you do results in a loss of total rest mass by the amount m = E/c^2. The relationship between mass and energy is a linear one. I.e. A doubling of the mass results in a doubling of the energy.\

Pete

 

Integral and chroot have it right, of course except for one thing:
The conservation equation of relativity does indeed enter. When the temperature rises in the body, the particles within the body are moving at higher velocity than at lower temperature. The higher velocity gives them a slightly larger mass, with respect to the same body at rest. It takes a little more energy to move a larger mass, but it is not significant unless the temperatures are greatly different.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Have a running debate with a friend of mine that says if I run 1 mile then I will have burned the same energy when I walk a mile. I say that since E=MC2, then the amount of energy I burn increases exponentially as I increase my rate of travel. Does anyone have a difinitive answer to this question? Could you possibly quote sources or provide a URL to an essay or article that explains this?

Another way to phrase this is: "A friend of mine and I are debating about "energy" and "E=MC2" and neither of us has any idea what we are talking about!"

Are you at all aware that "E= Mc²" has nothing at all to do with what YOUR speed is? It only says that an object of (rest) mass m contains intrinsic energy equal to Mc².

You may be confusing this with "E= (1/2)M v²", the formula for kinetic energy, but that also has nothing to do with the amount of work actually done.

I don't see any way for either of you to win this argument since neither of you knows what you are talking about!

 

[jeff]

Most of the work done is against gravity.

Think of the simpler case of jumping in place on one leg. The knee bends moving the body's CG (centre of gravity) downwards, and hopping accelerates the CG through some vertical distance h. If the person's mass is M, then the energy expended per hop is approximately Mgh where g is the acceleration due to gravity. To approximate this vertical component of work done while running, just multiply it by the number of strides taken.

The other component involves the acceleration of your body forwards, but once you're running the work done in this direction should be much smaller than the vertical component.

Obviously a number of simplifying assumptions relating to the precise mechanics of running are implicit in my remarks, but the main point is that the largest portion of one's energy is expended working against gravity.

 

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Integral and chroot have it right, of course except for one thing:
The conservation equation of relativity does indeed enter. When the temperature rises in the body, the particles within the body are moving at higher velocity than at lower temperature. The higher velocity gives them a slightly larger mass, with respect to the same body at rest. It takes a little more energy to move a larger mass, but it is not significant unless the temperatures are greatly different.

This isn't quite right. First off the difference can b e neglected for all practical purposes regarding running etc. It's very very ver much less than the mass of a single strand of hair.

As far as the accuracy of the statement: Yes. If all other things remain the same then an increase in temperature will imply an increase in mass. However not all things remain the same. Where did that energy come from to raise the temperature? It came for Adinosine Tri-Phosphate (ATP). There is a chemical change involving ATP in which potential energy of the molecules becomes kinetic energy of other molecules. So while there is a drop in one there is an increase the other.

Also - E=mc^2 applies to *all* forms of energy - not just nuclear energy.


Pete

 

Originally posted by HallsofIvy
Another way to phrase this is: "A friend of mine and I are debating about "energy" and "E=MC2" and neither of us has any idea what we are talking about!"

Are you at all aware that "E= Mc²" has nothing at all to do with what YOUR speed is? It only says that an object of (rest) mass m contains intrinsic energy equal to Mc².

You may be confusing this with "E= (1/2)M v²", the formula for kinetic energy, but that also has nothing to do with the amount of work actually done.

I don't see any way for either of you to win this argument since neither of you knows what you are talking about!

Uh thanks for the valuable input. I hope this makes you feel good about yourself.

 

[KillaMarcilla]

bump

*bump*

ha ha ha ha

man, this thread is so off the wall

There's a guy who has no clue, and a guy who has no clue as to how to grant the other guy a clue

You oughtta explain what energy and mass are, since most people think in terms of "Energy", "Power", "Mass" and "Force" being the same thing, roughly

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by ando
Ok Warren. Thanks for the post, but I'm not sure this really settles the bet. Would object X, consume more, less, or the same amount of energy when traveling from point A (let's assume these objects are moving through a vacuum - drag was not intended to be part of the equation), to point B than object Z if object Z traveled twice as fast?

Sometimes you get clarity by changing a word in the question.
You are focused very hard on the idea of CONSUME energy, use up energy.
Suppose you think about how much energy is INVESTED in something, like matter or motion or whatever----tied up in the existence of it for as long as it exists.

Now you said "drag was not intended" so I am going to take you seriously and imagine no friction or air-drag or losses of any kind.
and have the motion on level ground too.

Pretend your object X and object Z have the same kilograms or tons of mass---two cars of the same make, weighing the same.

If Z goes twice as fast then it has 4 times as much energy tied up in its motion, as X has invested in its motion.

If Z goes three times as fast than it has 9 times as much energy tied up in its motion as X has in its.

[Integral already told you this but maybe you didnt think about it]

Something has to happen to this energy in order for Z to stop!
It has to go into heating the brake pads or the disk-brakes.

Or Z has to crash into a wall and expend the energy in bending its front end.

So if it is going 3 times as fast the crash will be 9 times as bad.
Or there will be 9 times as much heat dissipated in the brakes----when it comes time to stop.

The work energy it took to get the car rolling becomes the heat energy that has to be gotten rid of when its time for it to stop.
***********************

The famous cee-squared equation talks about the energy invested in the sheer existence of a thing.

If an electron is sitting there then at some point in the history of the universe some type of energy was invested in causing it to come into existence. That energy is tied up in that things being.
And the really amazing thing is that if that electron should ever go out of existence nature would get the SAME AMOUNT back again----in some form: heat, light, gammarays. Even if it lasted for a billion years and then went poof. Nothing is consumed. Nothing is lost. It is only temporarily tied up in what exists----like the motion of car X and car Z----and the energy will be recovered when that motion or that existence ceases.

*************
This too shall pass. hmmm. and yield back the energy of which it was made
*************

does it strike you as mathematically nice that in both
cases----the case of motion and the case of material existence---
a SQUARE of a velocity is involved. Physicists are complete children when it comes to algebra----show them a square or a square root and they immediately stop squabbling and come to attention. Normal people, I regret to say, are not so in love with algebra. But perhaps it was the square of some velocity that intrigued your friend you had the bet with.

 

E=mc² where m is relativistic mass represents the Total Internal Energy of any mass m, so pmb is right, it wouldn't change with combustion unless the energy source were in the air. Myyy mistake.

 

[quartodeciman]

Can one still get away with talking about relativistic mass?
I thought the current generation of physics custodians give one the back of the handle for saying that.
I hope the answer is YES.

 

well that's what the "m" is in the equation, OK. m=moγ

 

First off regarding the comment

E=mc2 where m is relativistic mass represents the Total Internal Energy of any mass m,..

This isn't quite right. The internal energy is the energy inherent to the particle itself - i.e. E_o = m_o*c^2 = rest energy.

Note: The quantity gamma*m_o*c^2 is not the total energy of a moving particle of proper mass m_o. It's the kinetic energy plus the rest energy. The total energy is the kinetic + rest + potential.

See --- www.geocities.com/physics_world/relativistic_energy.htm

Regarding the comment

Can one still get away with talking about relativistic mass?
I thought the current generation of physics custodians give one the back of the handle for saying that.
I hope the answer is YES.

Sure. You can always talk about relativistic mass. Many physicists still do. Even recent GR books do. There are no "custodians" in physics. There is an entire spectrum of ideas and opinions. It just so happens that the con-relativistic mass people are more apt to try to force their ideas on others. The pro-relativistic mass people know that it's a matter of definition and use it was they see fit.

Don't let them fool you though. Relativistic mass is the closest thing you'll get to the having the all the properties one normaly associates with mass.

Pete

 

[quartodeciman]

Thanks, Pete. I feel better already.

 

Originally posted by quartodeciman
Thanks, Pete. I feel better already.

Glad to help. If you'd like I can scan a few articles in and e-mail them to you. One is a response by Wolfgang Rindler (a well known relativist) who wrote and article for Physics today defending relativistic mass. There is another one from the American Journal of Physics called "In defense of relativistic mass" that you might enjoy.

Just e-mail me at peter.brown46@verizon.net

I can also send you the paper I'm writing on this very concept. It's in a good enough stage that I don't mind letting someone read it at this point.

Pete