Energy apparently equals mass times the speed of light squared

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equation E=mc², exploring the definitions of "energy" and the significance of the speed of light in this context. Participants question the implications of this equation, particularly in relation to nuclear fission and the nature of energy within atoms. The scope includes conceptual understanding and theoretical implications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the definition of "energy" in E=mc² and questions the relevance of the speed of light, suggesting it seems arbitrary.
  • Another participant challenges this view, asserting that the speed of light is not arbitrary and should be understood through advanced physics texts that provide proof of the equation.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of energy in nuclear fission, with one participant proposing that energy may not be immense within a single atom but rather dependent on interactions with other atoms.
  • There is a metaphor comparing the energy of an atom to a carpenter's productivity, suggesting that energy can vary based on external factors, which leads to questions about the finiteness of potential energy.
  • Responses include corrections regarding the nature of nuclear reactions, emphasizing the role of neutrons rather than protons in initiating chain reactions.
  • One participant references a proof of E=mc² from a physics text, indicating that the momentum transferred by light relates to energy and its conversion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement. While some clarify and correct misunderstandings, others maintain differing views on the nature of energy and its implications in physical theories. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of energy, assumptions about the nature of atomic interactions, and the complexity of the concepts being discussed, which may not be fully understood by all participants.

  • #31


dailyplanit said:
But if you are correct (and I believe you are) ...and 1 is a valid number to represent C (1light year per year) then C is not only random in the equation but irrellavent which is exactly the reason so many people ask WHY is it even in the equation? And that is the whole point of the question. If C can =1 and energy is SIMPLY the mass then what idiot decided to complicate it and add C2 in there ...and why ...because a big boom deserves a big number so make it look bigger or what?
This is still wrong. Please go back and reread my post #15, which explains how units work. You need to understand the reality that 186,000=300,000=1 if the units attached to those numbers are related properly. And more importantly, you need to understand what that means: it does not mean that "C" is irrelevant and can be removed from the equation.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32


First of all, if you talk about random numbers you have to give the probability density function.

If the speed of light is a random number as blackbird86 suppose but the standard deviation is very small like 10^{-100000} maybe we cannot differentiate if the speed of light is a constant or a random number.
 
  • #33


I think I may understand what the poster is confused about. They don't understand why the speed of light comes into the equation at all, so they're assuming that IN REGARDS TO THE EQUATION, the speed of light is a randomly chosen number.

If matter could be completely converted into energy, that energy would basically BE light. That's the speed the converted energy would travel, and that's why the speed of light comes into the equation. If an atom decays and we capture every particle emitted by the atom, and measure the energy of those particles(and the energy emitted by the decay of some of those particles), they all add up to e=mc^2.

I'm just a total layman, hopefully I haven't made things more confusing.

EDIT(further elaboration): As far as I can tell, we use the speed of light because it's the only universal constant we know when it comes to energy(light energy). In order to measure energy, you need to have a unit of distance, a unit of time, and a unit of mass. The speed of light takes that all into account. If we want E to be measured in Joules, we have to use the units used to calculate Joules(kilograms, meters, and seconds). So with Joules, C becomes how far light travels in a second, measured in meters. If we wanted to measure in Ergs, we'd use grams, meters and seconds instead. C would still be the same for the equation, but M would have 3 extra zero's. So your E would be a different and larger number, but equivalent to your Joule answer. So the units used in regards to measure the energy, are arbitrary in that sense. From your Joules answer, you can calculate how many BTU's that energy could generate, how many megatons it could create, whatever.

I think most people get confused about this because they don't fundamentally know how energy is measured to begin with.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K