Exploring Mass-Energy Equivalence and its Connection to Gravity

[letsfailsafe]

Mass energy equivalence question

Hi I'm just wondering how energy is equivalence to the mass if E=mc ^2. I don't understand why you must times it by the speed of the light^2.

And if the mass is proportional to the gravity, is it right to consider gravity as energy?

 

[Khashishi]

The speed of light is a constant with dimensions, so it can be regarded as merely a conversion factor from one set of units to another.
It's like saying your weight in pounds and your weight in Newtons. They are equivalent, but they have different units so you need a conversion factor to convert between them.

As for why the conversion factor happens to be the speed of light... well that's just how it happens to be. Informally speaking, the speed of light is the natural conversion constant between units of length and units of time, because light in vacuum moves at the maximum speed possible.

I think you can regard gravity waves as energy, but not gravity.

 

[Neandethal00]

Hi I'm just wondering how energy is equivalence to the mass if E=mc ^2. I don't understand why you must times it by the speed of the light^2.

And if the mass is proportional to the gravity, is it right to consider gravity as energy?

I see one reason c² can come into the equation E=mc² is origin of all matters is electromagnetic waves. Appearance c² in energy makes no sense and has no explanation whatsoever. It is like saying speed of a car depends on the lightnings in the sky.

 

[Vorde]

I see one reason c² can come into the equation E=mc² is origin of all matters is electromagnetic waves. Appearance c² in energy makes no sense and has no explanation whatsoever. It is like saying speed of a car depends on the lightnings in the sky.

I don't know where you are getting this from, Khashishi's explantion explains it quite well.

 

[Naty1]

As for why the conversion factor happens to be the speed of light... well that's just how it happens to be.

That's seems about as far as current science may be able to take us.

But we do understand that early in our universe radiation...electromagnetic energy...was all...together with space and time. As things cooled, particles emerged so it seems logical to me there should be some connection between mass and energy. When science better understands the exact relationships be tween mass, energy, space, time, 'c', those essentials that came from the origin of our universe, we may be able to provide a firmer connection.

Perhaps unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity, so we can quantify the big bang and black hole singularities, will give us some of the necessary insights...via quantum gravity. I'd like to know why there is space and time and a speed of light.

 

[mfb]

The "c" in that equation is not from electromagnetism. While photons happen to travel at that speed, this applies to all massless particles. Photons are just the most important type.

If you combine quantum mechanics and special relativity, you get that rest-energy as result. It depends on the universal speed limit (given by special relativity), and you do not need any electromagnetism in the derivation.

 

[HallsofIvy]

There is a reasonably simple derivation at http://www.adamauton.com/warp/emc2.html,
another at http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/Emc2/Derive.htm and the original paper at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

 

[Byron Chen]

I see one reason c² can come into the equation E=mc² is origin of all matters is electromagnetic waves. Appearance c² in energy makes no sense and has no explanation whatsoever. It is like saying speed of a car depends on the lightnings in the sky.

I think the OP meant how this equation is derived, more specifically how c^2 was derived.

 

[Drakkith]

And if the mass is proportional to the gravity, is it right to consider gravity as energy?

Energy is the ability to perform work. Gravity is a fundamental force. Forces cause things to happen, it is through the fundamental forces that everything interacts.

 

[Neandethal00]

While photons happen to travel at that speed, this applies to all massless particles. Photons are just the most important type.

If something is massless why its speed would be limited to 'c' only?
It can have unlimited speed, unless some one has already shown otherwise I'm not aware of.

I don't know where you are getting this from, Khashishi's explantion explains it quite well. (Vorde)

This has been my thinking lately. That E=mc² is a simple conversion factor.

When science better understands the exact relationships be tween mass, energy, space, time, 'c', those essentials that came from the origin of our universe, we may be able to provide a firmer connection. (Naty1)

What if the conditions in early universe under which matters (mass) were formed were totally lost and are not reproducable. Which means our MATHs will not work in that early universe.

 

[mfb]

If something is massless why its speed would be limited to 'c' only?
It can have unlimited speed, unless some one has already shown otherwise I'm not aware of.

Special relativity. While there are mathematical solutions for velocities > c, they require particles with an imaginary mass (imaginary like a square root of -1) and if they can interact with other particles, they violate causality (you could modify your own past). In addition, if they lose energy, they get faster.
Those solutions are called tachyons, and they are usually considered as unphysical.

This has been my thinking lately. That E=mc² is a simple conversion factor.

Right. If you use the same units for space and time, the equation is simply E=m.

What if the conditions in early universe under which matters (mass) were formed were totally lost and are not reproducable. Which means our MATHs will not work in that early universe.

Up to now, no variations of physical laws with time were observed, and they would be really problematic in terms of the fundamental theories. Experiments today produce results which are consistent with the predictions for the early universe.