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

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter expscv
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Light Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between energy and mass as expressed by the equation E = mc², particularly in the context of light and the implications of special relativity. Participants explore concepts such as the mass of light, the conversion of energy into mass, and the challenges of accelerating objects to the speed of light.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether light has mass or energy, with one suggesting that light does not have proper mass but may have inertial mass.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of trying to accelerate an object to the speed of light, with some asserting that energy input leads to an increase in mass, making further acceleration more difficult.
  • One participant describes the concept of mass dilation, noting that as an object's speed approaches the speed of light, its mass increases, requiring more energy for acceleration.
  • Another participant presents a thought experiment related to the relativity of simultaneity, illustrating how different observers perceive events differently based on their relative motion.
  • Some participants express confusion about how light can have momentum and energy without having mass, and how it behaves differently from massive objects when interacting with other media.
  • There are repeated requests for clarification on complex ideas, indicating that some statements may not be easily understood by all participants.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether light has mass or energy, and there are competing views regarding the implications of mass-energy conversion and the behavior of objects approaching the speed of light. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions of mass in different contexts (proper mass vs. inertial mass) and the implications of special relativity on energy and mass conservation. There are limitations in the clarity of some statements, leading to requests for rephrasing and further explanation.

  • #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 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K