E=mc^2: What is Mass & Matter?

ebodet18
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Mass or Matter in E=mc^2 ??

I understand that m stands for mass but I thought matter was transformed into energy. Is matter what mass is made of? I just don't get it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Matter has historically been a loosely defined term, and its definition has evolved gradually over time. Today, many people seem to use it to mean fermions as opposed to bosons, but that's not universally accepted or understood. It really depends on context. The m in E=mc^2 is for mass, regardless of what the mass is made of.
 
bcrowell said:
Today, many people seem to use it to mean fermions as opposed to bosons, but that's not universally accepted or understood.

I think you might mean fermions/Higgs boson as opposed to gauge bosons?
To clarify to the OP: this distinction corresponds to the fact that we need to put in the fermions and Higgs boson by hand in the standard model, but that we get the gauge bosons "automatically" as they are the particles mediating the fundamental forces. Naively, this usage is the generalization of calling the electron matter, and the photon not (again: because photons merely describe interaction between matter).

Your question is a good one, and as bcrowelln has answered: what E = mc^2 is telling is, is that the rest energy of an object is related to its mass in that way. That's it. What this formula suggests, however, is much more. One knew, for example, that light had energy in it (but they didn't know it had mass) and one knew that atoms have mass (but they didn't really know it had energy for just "existing") but in light of this new formula, the question easily popped up: can we not somehow convert atoms into light, as long as we conserve this energy? In other words: this formula implied that rest energy might be a new kind of potential energy that you could convert. And indeed, we now know that for example electrons and positrons ("matter") can combine into photons ("not matter"), and the photons will have at least energy E = mc^2.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
981
Back
Top