E=m'c^2: A Comprehensive Guide to Deriving the Famous Equation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter prasannapakkiam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the equation E=m'c^2, focusing on the mathematical steps involved and the validity of various concepts related to mass and speed dilation. Participants provide feedback on a document compiled by one member, which aims to present these derivations clearly.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests feedback on their document detailing the derivation of E=m'c^2 and expresses uncertainty about the introduction's clarity.
  • Another participant suggests expanding the introduction to provide more context and clarity, particularly regarding ambiguous statements about light.
  • Several participants question the validity of the derivations of length contraction and mass dilation presented in the document.
  • One participant argues against the use of relativistic mass, advocating for the modern use of rest mass (M0) and suggesting that mass dilation is an outdated concept.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about whether the disagreement pertains to the derivation itself or the equation's application.
  • There is a mention of speed dilation as an alternative concept, with one participant indicating they will research it further.
  • One participant references experimental evidence from particle accelerators to support their use of mass dilation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the concepts of mass dilation and speed dilation, with no consensus reached on the validity of the derivations or the preferred terminology. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to understanding these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight ambiguities in definitions and the historical context of the terms used, indicating that assumptions about mass and speed may vary among different scientific perspectives.

prasannapakkiam
I had some spare time and I wanted to compile a document that contained all the mathematical steps to obtain E=m'c^2. Anyway, I have written this PDF. If any of you have spare time, can you please look over my document and criticize it?:smile:

Also, if this place is inappropriate to post this here, you may delete this post...:rolleyes:
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Just a thought...

You may want to do a clean-up job on the introduction. It seems too concise to convey much to the uninitiated. But you cannot dwell on the history for too long, either. It could be expanded to , say, a page or two. And make sure each sentence is complete and meaningful. For example, the sentence, "Light did not have a limit," is ambiguous. What sort of limit are we talking about??
 
hmm. true I did not pay too much attention to the intro. Thanks for the feedback. "Light did not have a limit," - I can't believe I wrote that! :)

Also is my derivation of length contraction valid?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can some please also see if my derivation of the Mass Dilation is Valid?
 
I disagree with your use of Relativistic Mass,
Modern use of M0 is more accepted and IMO accurate.
The idea the mass actually approaches infinity as speed nears “c” is not realistic.
Using the correct relative speed needed to correctly calculate momentum and energy as speed approaches infinity makes much more sense and fits in better with the current view of using only M0.
It solves for E=mc2 just as well.

IMO speed dilation for this calculation makes much more sense than mass dilation.
 
Really? Well I wasn't actually aware of that. Hmm. so you disagree with my derivation or the use of the equation itself?
 
? don't know what you mean by "the equation"

What I disagree with is using the idea that mass of an object changes relative to frame of measure.

Most current modern views of science consider it is an old, unnecessary incorrect analogy.
A view that I agree with.

Did you even try speed dilation?
 
prasannapakkiam said:
Also is my derivation of length contraction valid?
Funny how you have to ask this question... I mean, the fact of publishing this document has to mean you're sure of its content, right?
 
Publish? I have just posted it to PF...!
 
  • #10
Time Dilation, Mass Dilation. Now I have heard Speed Dilation. Okay I shall research it.

Anyway, as a side note why is MD wrong? The reason I used it is because of the proof I thought was found in the particle accelerators with electrons and their abnormal increase in B, as predicted by MD...
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Discover the Method to Derive E=mc^2 - A Comprehensive Guide
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Undergrad Three inertial particles: Separating the twins from the paradox
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Undergrad I'm searching for a specific book with the derivation of ##E\propto v^2##?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Graduate The eigenvalue power method for quantum problems
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Is this a valid derivation of E=mc^2?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Graduate Understanding how to derive the differential cross-section formula
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate Could the 3D percolation model explain Regge-Trajectories?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Sticky
Other Collection of Free Online Math Books and Lecture Notes (part 1)
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
13K
How to get better recommendations in view of Phd?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Requesting suggestions for languages, libraries, and architectures for parallel (and sometimes non parallel) numerical and scientific computations
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K