Exploring E=m*c**2: A Deeper Look

  • Thread starter solarblast
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of energy and the famous equation E=mc^2. The author also mentions the use of natural units and how they can simplify calculations. They go on to talk about the relationship between gravity and energy, with gravity being able to store and release energy like a spring. The conversation also explores the idea of the early universe being in equilibrium between two entities, which can be described using equations that result in a value of zero.
  • #1
solarblast
152
2
E=m*c**2 or ...

I'm reading the book The Ring of Truth, written in the 80s as a companion for the PBS series of the same name.

The author is discussing energy and the Subject equation. He remarks that another form is E=M, and c**2 is considered a "conversion factor". Is he using E=M as a concept or an "actual" equation? Is the conversion factor malleable depending upon circumstances? I would think a concept.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Not any circumstances I've ever heard of...

Yes, it can be considered a "conversion factor", but it's a physically meaningful conversion factor.

The full equation, by the way, is:

[tex]E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2[/tex]

for P = 0 (a motionless particles), it simplifies to what you know n' love, but light always has a non-zero P (though it has M = 0).

So in the case of photons,

[tex] E = pc [/tex]

clasically, p would have been mv, (mass times velocity), but since photons have 0 m and nonzero p, p (momentum) is not always dependent on mass... HRRRMMM...
 
  • #3


It's just a choice of units, and indeed it is quite common to use a set of units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units" [Broken]) where c=1. In that case, for a zero momentum particle, one indeed has the relation E=m.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4


[tex] E = m c^2 [/tex]
can mean one of two things:
a) m is the rest mass of a stationary particle.
b) m is the relativistic mass of a particle.
In either case, 'the house' is right that the choice of natural units is just as legitimate as any other set of units.
And in fact, natural units are the most natural set of units to use (hence their name).
So yes, E=m is an actual equation.
 
  • #5


If the idea of setting a value arbitrarily equal to 1 seems odd, there is good reason to do so. There are a few constants in nature which you typically see set to 1: the speed of light, c, Planck's constant, [itex]\hbar[/itex], the Gravitational constant, G, and Boltzmann's constant, [itex]k_B[/itex]. So something normally very complicated such as the Hawking temperature, which is given by [itex]T = {{\hbar c^3}\over{8 \pi G M k_B}}[/itex] reduces down to simply [itex]T = {{1}\over{8 \pi M}}[/itex] where M is the mass of the black hole that's radiating with that temperature.

Of course, by changing the numerical values of all those constants, every other quantity needs to be changed when you actually sit down and do numeric computations. So you'll see at the back of some texts a small guide that basically says "Okay, your temperature is in units of [itex]1/mass[/itex], to get it back to degrees Kelvin, multiply by this number and you'll have a temperature". It's way simpler than having to keep those constants around in every single line in your calculation.
 
Last edited:
  • #6


edit: oops, ignore this
 
  • #7


BruceW said:
[tex] E = m c^2 [/tex]
can mean one of two things:
a) m is the rest mass of a stationary particle.
b) m is the relativistic mass of a particle.
In either case, 'the house' is right that the choice of natural units is just as legitimate as any other set of units.
And in fact, natural units are the most natural set of units to use (hence their name).
So yes, E=m is an actual equation.

Well, sure, as long as you manipulate E and m to account for the change. You're basically just hiding the conversion factor in the units of E and m.
 
  • #8


Yeah, the idea is to change to a system of units that make equations easier to write down.
 
  • #9


Thanks to the above for their responses. Now let ask a similar question on a different manner. In the final chapter or The Grand Design by Hawking and Mlodinow, they mention on page 181 "...the positive energy of the matter [in the universe] can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy ..." How is gravity energy? We have something like M+G = 0. M=total energy, and G total negative gravitational energy.
 
  • #10


Gravity isn't energy but it can store and release it like a spring. When you lift a box and put it on a shelf, the chemical energy in your muscles is transformed into gravitational potential energy. The additional energy in the gravitational field shows up as a slight reduction of the net gravity of the earth+box. Since it's a reduction and not an increase of the gravity, it's considered that the gravitational potential is negative. To understand what this means, try lifting a charged box against an electric field. In that case the field gets stronger not weaker when it stores potential energy.
 
  • #11


In classical physics, the gravitational potential energy that exists between all masses is negative.
Think about it this way: When you have two masses, far apart, the gravitational field pulls them closer together, while increasing their kinetic energy (they speed up). Energy is conserved, so we say the increase in kinetic energy accompanies a decrease in gravitational potential energy.
So the gravitational potential energy is less when two masses get close to each other. The gravitational potential energy is defined to be zero when the two masses are infinitely far apart from each other. Therefore, the gravitational potential energy is always some negative value.

A true explanation of cosmological theory would require general relativity, instead of classical physics, but unfortunately I don't know much about general relativity.
 
  • #12


The above sounds reasonable, so let me try this. M-!G|=0. We are now talking about the entire universe. Does this allow me to say there is "nothing" to the universe? I quote Feynman with The physicist uses ordinary words in a peculiar manner." What I'm moving toward is this a way of describing the early universe when it essentially nothing. If not the above equation, some such equation that is zero, so a physicist can say it is nothing, but in fact it is in equilibrium between two entities.
 
  • #13


solarblast said:
The above sounds reasonable, so let me try this. M-!G|=0. We are now talking about the entire universe. Does this allow me to say there is "nothing" to the universe? I quote Feynman with The physicist uses ordinary words in a peculiar manner." What I'm moving toward is this a way of describing the early universe when it essentially nothing. If not the above equation, some such equation that is zero, so a physicist can say it is nothing, but in fact it is in equilibrium between two entities.

Equilibrium and "nothingness" are two different things. It is not true to say there is nothing to the universe, you can only say the universe is in equilibrium (which is not true either).

Now, to clarify what is meant by energy being gravity, you need to look at general relativity. The Einstein Field Equations equate energy with gravity; any form of energy creates a gravitational field. This means suns, planets, atoms, photons, everything. Of course, since this includes rest energies, suns and planets have gravitational fields so strong that individual atoms and photons have gravitational interactions so tiny in comparison that you need some rather complex experiments to verify this.

If you're reading a book written in the 80s, you're going to be misled on the cosmology in it. Since then, we have discovered the universe is actually acceleration - space-time is expanding at an increasing rate. The expansion of the universe is not balanced by the gravitational pull of the actual stuff inside the universe trying to contract it back in.
 

1. What is the significance of the equation E=mc^2?

The equation E=mc^2, also known as the mass-energy equivalence equation, is one of the most famous equations in physics. It states that energy (E) and mass (m) are equivalent and can be converted into each other. This equation is a fundamental principle of the theory of relativity and has been verified through numerous experiments.

2. How did Albert Einstein come up with the equation E=mc^2?

Albert Einstein developed the equation E=mc^2 as part of his special theory of relativity in 1905. He was inspired by the work of physicists Max Planck and Henri Poincaré, who had previously suggested that energy and mass could be equivalent. Einstein's theory revolutionized our understanding of the relationship between energy and mass and has had a profound impact on modern physics.

3. What are some practical applications of E=mc^2?

E=mc^2 has numerous practical applications in various fields. It is the basis for nuclear energy, as it explains how mass can be converted into large amounts of energy in nuclear reactions. This equation is also used in medical imaging techniques such as PET scans and in the development of nuclear weapons. Additionally, it has implications for space travel and the study of black holes.

4. Can E=mc^2 be applied to everyday objects?

Yes, E=mc^2 can be applied to everyday objects, but the effects are very small and not noticeable in our daily lives. The equation shows that even a small amount of mass contains a large amount of energy, but this energy is typically released in nuclear reactions or very high-speed particles, which are not commonly observed in everyday objects.

5. What are some misconceptions about E=mc^2?

One common misconception about E=mc^2 is that it explains how mass can be created or destroyed. In reality, the equation only shows the conversion of energy and mass, not their creation or destruction. Another misconception is that this equation applies to all forms of energy, but it is specifically related to rest mass, which is the mass of an object when it is not in motion.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
672
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
738
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
75
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Back
Top