Energy = mass * c^2 where c=speed of light

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between energy, mass, and the speed of light, as described by Einstein's equation E=mc². It explores whether light possesses mass or energy, concluding that while light has energy, it does not have proper mass. The conversation also addresses the implications of approaching the speed of light, noting that as an object's speed increases, its inertial mass effectively increases, making further acceleration more difficult. Additionally, the effects of gravity on light are discussed, emphasizing that gravity influences all forms of energy, including massless photons. Overall, the complexities of mass-energy equivalence and the behavior of light in relation to gravity and speed are highlighted.
  • #31
The_Nebula said:
Photons is energy, electromagnetic, and therefore has no mass and travels in wave forms like light. So photons is a quantum of electromagnetic energy. So the equation should fit both ways... be it fusing 2 photons or something? Or putting photons into matter with mass.

Photons are not energy. They have energy. Then again all particles have energy.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
pmb_phy said:
Hard to say. I've never seen any firm rule on this apply. It seems to be a guessing game. For instance - Even for someone with a "medium level" understanding it is still uncertain what they know. It often depends on how they learned it and what question is being asked.

The quesion of the relativistic mass for light is a good example. If a student has a text which defines inertial (aka relativistic) mass, m, as

m = \frac{m}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}

then they might think that the relativistic mass for light is undefined. They might think that its zero too. However if the students text defines inertial mass in the correct way, i.e. as m = p/v, then its obvious that anything with a finite momentum and finite speed has a finite m. This fact is not a well known fact but this is the most rigorous and the most precise way to define inertial mass and its the definition upon which all derivations of m are based. Its an unfortunate fact that basic physics texts don't explain this. However texts which are devoted to relativity often elxplain this.

Hence my suggestion to define precisely what one means by "mass" when speaking about whether or not light has mass or not.


hoho the next time i post anything i will state my level hehe
 
  • #33
expscv said:
hoho the next time i post anything i will state my level hehe
I don't think that's neccesary. As I indicated I think its a guessing game. Recall that I mentioned that two people who learned at the same level but from different texts might not know the same ideas.

Besides. I wouldn't want to post at a discussion board where people thought that they had to post their background to get an answer.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K