Energy, Mass, Light: Unveiling the Relationship

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

The discussion centers on the relationship between mass, energy, and the speed of light (c) as defined by Einstein's equation E=mc². Participants clarify that the inclusion of c is not arbitrary but stems from the dimensional analysis of energy and mass in conventional units. The speed of light is the only invariant speed, necessitating its square in conversion factors between mass and energy. The conversation also touches on the use of natural units where c=1, simplifying the relationship between these quantities.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's equation E=mc²
  • Familiarity with dimensional analysis in physics
  • Knowledge of conventional and natural units in physics
  • Basic concepts of kinetic energy and its formula
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of natural units in theoretical physics
  • Study dimensional analysis and its applications in physics
  • Learn about the principles of kinetic energy and its relationship to mass
  • Investigate the concept of invariant speeds in physics
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in the fundamental relationships between mass, energy, and the speed of light.

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 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K