Energy, Mass, Light: Unveiling the Relationship

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jnorman34
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relationship
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between energy, mass, and the speed of light, particularly questioning why the speed of light is a fundamental constant in the mass-energy equivalence equation. Participants explore the implications of this relationship from both mathematical and philosophical perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about why the speed of light is involved in the mass-energy relationship, suggesting a deeper philosophical insight may be at play.
  • Another participant argues that the relationship is merely an artifact of the unit system, stating that any conversion factor between mass and energy must involve a speed squared, specifically the speed of light.
  • Some participants reiterate the idea that energy is defined in terms of mass and speed squared, referencing kinetic energy as an example.
  • One participant suggests that when mass is converted to energy, it is actually converted to radiation, which moves at the speed of light, and discusses the proportionality of energy to velocity.
  • Another participant challenges the claim that energy is proportional to velocity, asserting that the energy of light is constant regardless of its velocity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the relationship between speed, mass, and energy. While some agree on the mathematical basis of the relationship, others contest the reasoning behind the proportionality of energy and velocity, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference different unit systems and the implications of using natural units, highlighting the complexity of the discussion without reaching a consensus on the philosophical implications of the relationship.

jnorman34
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Why “c” is the relationship between energy and mass?
A stupid layperson question-
while it is clear that any given quantity of mass comprises an enormous quantity of energy, I have wondered how could it be that the speed of light is involved in that relationship, rather than some very large, but random constant. It just seems so odd to me that c would just happen to be that constant. Yes, I understand the basic derivation of the equation stems from other equations which include c, but still, it boggles my mind that e, m, and c would be fundamentally related in this way. It is like some insight into the nature of reality that we “know” on the mathematical level but not quite on a philosophical or zen level. Perhaps someof you would share your thoughts on this. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry to disappoint but I don’t think there is any zen hiding here. It is just an artifact of your unit system. If you measure energy and mass in different units then you need a conversion factor with dimensions of speed squared. The speed of light is the only universal speed. So it has to be some multiple of ##c^2##
 
Thank you for responding. I just wonder why speed is related to mass/energy.
 
jnorman34 said:
I just wonder why speed is related to mass/energy.

It isn't. As @Dale said, it is just that our "conventional" system of units has the units of energy being the units of mass times speed squared. So if you want a conversion factor between mass and energy in these units, it has to be the square of some invariant speed, and there is only one invariant speed, ##c##.

However, there is no requirement to use different units for mass and energy, and in fact many areas of physics use "natural" units in which the units of energy and mass are the same. These units are often described as units in which ##c = 1##, but a better description would be that they are units in which "speed" has no dimensions.
 
jnorman34 said:
Thank you for responding. I just wonder why speed is related to mass/energy.
It is speed squared. By definition kinetic energy is ##\frac{1}{2} mv^2## so energy has units of mass times speed squared. So any conversion factor between mass and energy must be a speed squared.
 
jnorman34 said:
Thank you for responding. I just wonder why speed is related to mass/energy.
when mass is converted to "energy" what that really means is that it is converted to radiation. Radiation moves at c and energy is proportional to velocity. However, when something is moving twice as fast, its energy is not twice as much it is 4 times as much. Thus it has to be c^2. And, of course, that also makes the units work out properly in the system of units you have chosen

EDIT: Ah, I see Dale beat me to it. He does that, dammit ! :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
phinds said:
Radiation moves at c and energy is proportional to velocity.

Sorry, but this is not valid reasoning. The energy of light, or any other radiation, is not proportional to its velocity, because it moves at the same velocity regardless of its energy.

phinds said:
I see Dale beat me to it.

@Dale did not "beat" you to anything, strictly speaking, since his reasoning is valid but yours is unfortunately not (see above).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds
Thank you, gentlemen - that has been helpful.
 
PeterDonis said:
Sorry, but this is not valid reasoning. The energy of light, or any other radiation, is not proportional to its velocity, because it moves at the same velocity regardless of its energy.
@Dale did not "beat" you to anything, strictly speaking, since his reasoning is valid but yours is unfortunately not (see above).
egg_small.jpg
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: jnorman34

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K